ALLEN & CO., INC.

v.

PACIFIC DUNLOP HOLDINGS INC.

Citator

Cited By

• Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561 (U.S. 1995)
  …ion. The dominant point made by the Report, moreover, is that the civil liability sections are exacting. Compare Pacific Dunlop Holdings Inc. v. Allen & Co. Inc., 993 F. 2d 578 (CA7 1993) (applying § 12(2) to secondary transactions), cert. granted, 510 U. S. 1083, cert. dism’d, 510 U. S. 1160 (1994), with First Union Discount Brokerage Services, Inc. v. Milos, 997 F. 2d 835, 842-844 (CA11 1993) (holding §12(2) inapplicable to secondary transactions); Ballay v. Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc., 925 F. 2d 682 (CA3…
• Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1994)
  …uestions concerning the employee’s conduct and the employer’s motive. Because the same was true in this action, said the Supreme Court of Hawaii, respondent’s state tort claims were not pre-empted. We granted certiorari in these consolidated cases, 510 U. S. 1083 (1994). II A Whether federal law pre-empts a state law establishing a cause of action is a question of congressional intent. See Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U. S. 202, 208 (1985). Pre-emption of employment standards “within the traditional…
• Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1994)
  …arbitration of disputes and reasoning that, “Congress would not want state officials erring [*116] on the side of adjudicating state law disputes whenever it is a close call as to whether a claim is preempted.” Id., at 560.10 We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 1083 (1994), to address the important questions of federal labor law implicated by the Commissioner’s policy, and we now reverse. II A A state rule predicating benefits on refraining from conduct protected by federal labor law poses special dangers of…