NoDak Bancorporation v. Clarkson

5 Citing cases

  1. Billey v. North Dakota Stockmen's Ass'n

    1998 N.D. 120 (N.D. 1998)   Cited 11 times

    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."

  2. NoDak Bancorporation v. Clarke

    998 F.2d 1416 (8th Cir. 1993)   Cited 5 times
    Discussing legislative history

    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.

  3. Home of Economy v. Burlington Northern

    2005 N.D. 74 (N.D. 2005)   Cited 15 times
    Finding that the ICCTA does not explicitly preempt state law regarding grade crossings and discerning no actual conflict between the STB's exclusive jurisdiction with respect to regulation of rail transportation under the ICCTA and states' traditional authority regarding grade crossings

    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:

  4. Chapman v. Wells

    557 N.W.2d 725 (N.D. 1996)   Cited 8 times

    "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.

  5. North Dakota Pub. Serv. v. Woods Farmers Co-op

    488 N.W.2d 860 (N.D. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    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.