Hencely v. Fluor Corp. · ¶35

Since Boyle did not reach this case, the Fourth Circuit expanded it. “ `In the context of the combatant activities exception,' ” it observed, “ `the relevant question is not so much whether the substance of the federal duty is inconsistent with a hypothetical duty imposed by the state.' ” 120 F. 4th, at 429 (quoting Saleh, 580 F. 3d, at 7; emphasis added). Instead, the court reasoned, “it is the imposition per se of the state . . . tort law that conficts with the federal policy of eliminating” state regulation of the military during wartime. 120 F. 4th, at 429 (internal quotation marks omitted).

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.