Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶151
Having rejected Monsanto’s express preemption argument, I conclude by addressing its alternative contention that Durnell’s failure-to-warn claim is impliedly preempted. Specifically, Monsanto argues that it is impossible to comply with both the labeling requirements of Missouri law and the labeling requirements of FIFRA. See Mu tual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U. S. 472, 480 (2013).Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.