LEEMON

v.

ILLINOIS

Citator

Cited By

• NEW York Tel. Co. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Labor, 440 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1979)
  …the productive operations of their employer. See Hawaiian Telephone Co. v. Hawaii Dept. of Labor & Industrial Relations, 405 F. Supp. 275, 287-288 (Haw. 1976), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 943. For example, in Kimbell, Inc. v. Employment Security Comm’n, 429 U. S. 804, this Court dismissed for want of a substantial federal question an appeal from the Supreme Court of New Mexico which had held that a retroactive post-strike award of unemployment benefits to strikers under the “American rule” was not pre-empted by…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• NEW York Tel. Co. v. NEW York State Dep't OF Labor, 566 F.2d 388 (2d Cir. 1977)
  …ll as all of the plaintiffs-ap-pellees, New York Telephone Company (“Tel-co”), Weco, AT&T, Long Lines Department (“Long Lines”) and Empire City Subway Company (Limited) (“Empire”). . In Kimbell, Inc. v. Employment Security Commission of New Mexico, 429 U.S. 804, 97 S.Ct. 36, 50 L.Ed.2d 64 (1976), the Supreme Court dismissed, for want of a substantial federal question, an appeal which raised, inter alia, the question at issue here. Kimbell, Inc. v. Employment Security Commission of New Mexico, No. 10323 (N.…

  ← 1 / 2 →
• Hawaiian Tel. Co. v. State OF Haw. Dept. OF Labor & Indus. Relations, 614 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1980)
  …only issue before us is federal preemption: specifically, whether our determination of the question of federal preemption in this case is controlled by the Supreme Court’s summary dismissal of the appeal in Kimbell v. Employment Security Commission, 429 U.S. 804, 97 S.Ct. 36, 50 L.Ed.2d 64 (1976). Denial of certiorari imports nothing about the merits of a case. “Summary disposition of an appeal, however, either by affirmance or by dismissal for want of a substantial federal question is a disposition on the…

  ← 1 / 3 →