Monsanto v. Durnell · ¶95

In so holding, the Court departs from the near-unanimous view of the many state and federal courts that have rejected this preemption argument. In my view, the majority should have joined that chorus. Durnell's failure-to-warn claim is not “in addition to or different from” FIFRA's mandates; it is equivalent to FIFRA's key labeling requirement—the misbranding prohibition. And Durnell's claim does not confict with any other FIFRA “requirement” for § 136v(b) purposes because the EPA's registration of a pesticide and approval of its label does not create a labeling requirement under FIFRA.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.