...that employed in deciding if federal law pre-empts state law. In considering the latter question " 'we start with the assumption that the historic police...that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.' " Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 US 519, 526 (1977) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 US...

...occupied. See Munn v. Illinois, 94 US 113; Dairies Warehouse Co. v. Bowles, 321 US 144, 148-149. So we start with the assumption that the historic police...that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress. Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 272 US 605, 611 ; Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin Employment...

...traditionally occupied. (Munn \. Illinois, 94 US 113; Doxies Warehouse Co. v. Bowles, 321 US 144, 148-149.) So we start with the assumption that the historic police...that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress (Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 272 US 605, 611 ; Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin Employment...

...Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator, which requires that "the historic police powers of the States . . . not ... be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress." 20 Measured by that test, the Georgia law here cannot be invalidated. commerce, he said: "When Congress...

...been stated: Congress legislated here in a field which the States have traditionally occupied.... So we start with the assumption that the historic police...that was the clear and ^manifest purpose of Congress. Burbanh v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. , All US 624, 633 (1973). — Only when there are "persuasive...

...^. Congress legislated here in a field which the States have traditionally occupied.... So we Etart with the assumption that the historic police " ''powers...that was the clear and .manifest purpose of Congress. Burb.inl; v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. , 411 US 624, 633 (1973). —Only when there are "persuasive...

...been stated: Congress lcf.isl.itcd here In a field which the States have traditionally occupied.... So we start with the assumption that the historic police...superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and •nanifcst purpose of Congress. Burbnnk v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc. . 411 US 624, 633 (1973). -Only...

...scheme of regulation. . . . The question in in each case is what the purpose of Congress was ... So we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States [are] not be superseded by the Federal Act unless that [is} the clear and manifest purpose of Congress."...

...not express a specific intent to preempt state laws on the subject. The Supreme Court has stated that "we start with the assumption that the historic police...that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress." Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 US 218, 230 (1947) : Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 US 519, 525...

...analysis: "Congress legislated here in a field which the States have traditionally occupied. ... So we start with the assumption that the historic police...that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress. . . . Such a purpose may be evidenced in several ways. [1] The scheme of federal regulation may be...