Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶153
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 Mutual Pharmaceu tical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U. S. 472, 480 (2013).Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.