LibertyNational Bank, 427 N.W.2d at 310 (quoting L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 6-25, at 480 (2d ed. 1988). [¶ 29] In NoDak Bancorporation v. Clarkson, 471 N.W.2d 140, 142 (N.D. 1991), we enumerated the three bases of federal preemption: "Federal preemption of state law may occur if: (1) Congress explicitly preempts state law; (2) Congress impliedly preempts state law by indicating an intent to occupy an entire field of regulation; or (3) state law actually conflicts with federal law."
The state action was ultimately dismissed on the ground that the matter was preempted by the pending application before the Comptroller. See NoDak Bancorporation v. Clarkson, 471 N.W.2d 140 (N.D. 1991). The Comptroller considered NoDak's objections and responded to them in a memorandum dated July 13, 1990.
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 516, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) (quoting Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746, 101 S.Ct. 2114, 68 L.Ed.2d 576 (1981)). See Billey v. North Dakota Stockmen's Ass'n, 1998 ND 120, ¶¶ 28-29, 579 N.W.2d 171; NoDak Bancorporation v. Clarkson, 471 N.W.2d 140, 142 (N.D. 1991); State v. Liberty Nat'l Bank and Trust Co., 427 N.W.2d 307, 309-10 (N.D. 1988); Federal Land Bank v. Lillehaugen, 404 N.W.2d 452, 455 (N.D. 1987). In English v. General Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72, 78-79, 110 S.Ct. 2270, 110 L.Ed.2d 65 (1990) (citations omitted), the United States Supreme Court described when federal law preempts state law under the Supremacy Clause:
"We will ordinarily give effect to bankruptcy court decisions as a matter of comity to avoid the prospect of `the state and federal courts . . . reaching different results, ultimately resulting in unseemly and unnecessary conflict as each properly sought to enforce its determinations.'" North Dakota Public Service Commission v. Woods Farmers Coop. Elevator Co., 488 N.W.2d 860, 863 (N.D. 1992) (quoting NoDak Bancorporation v. Clarkson, 471 N.W.2d 140, 144 (N.D. 1991)). If the property at issue in this case had not been exempt, this may have been a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157.
Litigation in state court and in bankruptcy court raises the possibility of inconsistent rulings on similar issues. We will ordinarily give effect to bankruptcy court decisions as a matter of comity to avoid the prospect of "the state and federal courts . . . reaching different results, ultimately resulting in unseemly and unnecessary conflict as each properly sought to enforce its determinations" [ NoDak Bancorporation v. Clarkson, 471 N.W.2d 140, 144 (N.D. 1991)]. Thus, we will not pass judgment anew on decisions made in the bankruptcy proceedings by deciding the issues raised in this appeal as though the PSC had liquidated the grain in Woods' facilities and there had been no bankruptcy proceedings.