language of claim. American No Not law (state law): Yes: is Super frequent Well Super one of the allegedly based on State Works Important libelous claims related Law. to patent (federal law). --Federal law barges in Coincidentally on circumstances), not based on language of law itself. Moore No Garden itself is a torts Yes: Torts Super frequent variety claim claim does not claim: Not law); available mandate Super defenses are interference Important determined by federal from federal law. law. --Coincidental, not mandatory, interference. Shoshone No Land Patents: Federal statute is No, but in an Potentially Not super meaningless on its inverse way: frequent. important own: requires looking Federal law to law to develop mandates state meaning. law to barge in. Merrell No Labeling Federal law does NOT N/A: based on Super frequent. Dow laws: Not have a private of Congressional Super action. desire/intent Important Bivens Yes Civil Rights: Federal law does NOT Yes: Federal Not very Super have a private cause of Law frequent Important action (and there is (hopefully). indication that that is intentional), but court reads it in. Grable Yes Lifeblood of No private of No: Grable’s Not very Gov: action in Federal Law, claim is brought frequent. Taxation. but also no under State law Super Congressional (Title of Land), Important statement to the but the validity contrary. of the State Law Claim depends on the federal IRS land notification law. Empire No Medical Federal law does not Federal law, but Possibly insurance have a private cause of no ability for frequent. Not action.
language of claim. American Well Works No Not Super Important law (state law): one of the allegedly libelous claims related to patent (federal law). Yes: is based on State Law. --Federal law barges in Coincidentally on circumstances), not based on language of law itself. Super frequent Moore No Garden variety claim: Not Super Important itself is a torts claim law); available defenses are determined by federal law. Yes: Torts claim does not mandate interference from federal law. --Coincidental, not mandatory, interference. Super frequent Shoshone No Land Patents: Not super important Federal statute is meaningless on its own: requires looking to law to develop meaning. No, but in an inverse way: Federal law mandates state law to barge in. Potentially frequent. Merrell Dow No Labeling laws: Not Super Important Federal law does NOT have a private of action. N/A: based on Congressional desire/intent Super frequent. Bivens Yes Civil Rights: Super Important Federal law does NOT have a private cause of action (and there is indication that that is intentional), but court reads it in. Yes: Federal Law Not very frequent (hopefully). Grable Yes Lifeblood of Gov: Taxation. Super Important No private of action in Federal Law, but also no Congressional statement to the contrary. No: Grable’s claim is brought under State law (Title of Land), but the validity of the State Law Claim depends on the federal IRS land notification law. Not very frequent. Empire No Medical insurance Not Federal law does not have a private cause of action. Federal law, but no ability for Possibly frequent.
CivPro_Neuborne_2015.docx