...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...

...the States." Jones v. Rath Packing Co., supra, at 525. Preemption accordingly will be found only if " 'that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.' Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 US 218, 230 (1947)." Ibid. We turn our focus, then, to the congressional intent embodied...

...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...

...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 be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress." 20 Measured by that test, the Georgia law here cannot be invalidated.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...

...exercise of the "historic police powers of the States," is not to decree such a federal displacement "unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress," Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 US 218, 230. In other words, we are not to conclude that Congress legislated the ouster...

...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...

...apparently did 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...manifest purpose of Congress." Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 US 218, 230 (1947) : Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 US 519, 525 (1977) . The most recent...