exclusively occupy the field of boat mooring. Preemption By Conflict With State Law The question remains whether the amended ordinance is preempted by conflict with state law—either with the state laws governing wild waterfowl hunting or with the State Boat Act. As noted above, while the ordinary test for conflict preemption is whether the pertinent local law prohibits an activity permitted by state law or permits an activity prohibited by state law, “[n]ot all conflicts between state public general and local law neatly fall within this ‘prohibit-permit’ principle. A local law may conflict with a state public general law in other respects and will, therefore, be preempted.” Coalition for Open Doors v. Annapolis Lodge No. 622, supra, 333 Md. at 380 n 7 S.Ct. 805, 93 L.Ed.2d 883 (1987) (<HOLDING>); Chicago & N.W. Transp. Co. v. Kalo Brick &
holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that common law misrepresentation claims were not preempted because they did not conflict with a fmvss holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding that state common law claims were preempted by frustration of purpose conflict with the federal clean water act and noting it would be extraordinary for congress after devising an elaborate permit system that sets clear effluent discharge standards to tolerate common law suits that have the potential to undermine the regulatory system