Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC
Encyclopedia
Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC was a case before the United States Supreme Court.
, 505 U.S. 504, but would rather merely motivate an optional decision. Further, §136v(b) only prohibits labelling requirement that are inconsistent with federal requirements. It allows for additional requirements that are parallel with federal rules.
Facts
Dow's Strongarm pesticide damaged the crop of a group of Texas peanut farmers. The district court held that FIFRA preempted their claims.Holding
The court held that state labelling laws that were parallel or consistent with Federal laws are not preempted by FIFRA.Reasoning
A jury decision would not constitute a "requirement", as defined previously by the court in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.
Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., , was a United States Supreme Court case. In a split opinion, the court held that the Surgeon General's warning did not preclude suit by smokers against tobacco companies on several claims...
, 505 U.S. 504, but would rather merely motivate an optional decision. Further, §136v(b) only prohibits labelling requirement that are inconsistent with federal requirements. It allows for additional requirements that are parallel with federal rules.
Dissent
Thomas, filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part: Scalia joined.See also
Altria Group v. GoodAltria Group v. Good
In Altria Group v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 , the United States Supreme Court held that a state law prohibiting deceptive tobacco advertising was not preempted by a federal law regulating cigarette advertising.-Facts:...