The case of Philko Aviation, Inc. v. Shacket et ux., 1982 revolved around the issue of whether federal law preempts state law in cases involving airplane sales and fraudulent misrepresentation claims. The plaintiff, Philko Aviation, purchased an aircraft from the defendants (the Shacklets) but later discovered that it had been damaged in a previous accident which was not disclosed at the time of sale. They filed a lawsuit under Illinois state law for fraudulent misrepresentation. However, because airplanes are subject to extensive federal regulation under the Federal Aviation Act (FAA), there was question as to whether this preempted any action under state laws. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that while FAA regulations do govern many aspects related to aviation safety and commerce, they do not necessarily preempt all areas where states may have traditionally exercised their power such as contract or tort law relating to private transactions like selling used goods including airplanes. Therefore, despite being heavily regulated by federal laws due to their inherent interstate nature and potential impact on public safety; when it comes down to individual transactions between private parties - those can still be governed by relevant local or state level legislation unless explicitly stated otherwise within specific provisions of applicable national statutes.

In the dissenting opinion for Philko Aviation, Inc. v. Shacket et ux., Justice Stevens argued that the Federal Aviation Act does not preempt state law regarding aircraft transactions and thus, Illinois' revocation of a fraudulent sale was valid. He contended that Congress did not intend to occupy the entire field of aviation safety or sales but rather aimed to establish minimum safety standards which states could supplement as needed. He further noted that allowing federal law to supersede state laws in this area would create an absurd result where dishonest sellers are protected simply because their goods happen to be airplanes instead of other types of property. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation and application of preemption doctrine in this case.