Court Opinion

ID: 9516878
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:54:58.867031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:45.776890
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Justice,
concurring in part and concurring in result.
Except as to Part V, I concur in the majority opinion. Unlike the majority, I would not *340"hold that the § 1897(k) preemption clause entirely forecloses any possibility of implied preemption in this case." Opinion at 886. The United States Supreme Court in Myrick was faced with the same statute-with the same preemption clause and savings clause-that is before us in the present case. Rather than disposing of the issue by declaring implied preemption to be foreclosed, the Myr-ick majority in fact performed an implied preemption analysis, concluding that compliance with both federal and state law was not impossible and that the lawsuit did not frustrate congressional objectives. Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick (1995), - U.S. --, --, 115 S.Ct. 1483, 1487, 131 L.Ed.2d 385. That the Myrick court expressly conducted such an analysis leads me to conclude that we must do likewise. Thus, while I agree with the majority's implied preemption analysis in Part VI, I do not join in its introductory comment that such analysis "is not required." Opinion at 336.