Hencely v. Fluor Corp. · ¶94

If anything, Boyle lends support to preemption here because it held state law was preempted even in the absence of any relevant express preemption provision. And it recognized that a state tort claim may be preempted if it intrudes on an area involving a “uniquely federal interes[t].” 487 U. S., at 504. But its relevance for present purposes stops there.

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