World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

Article Id: WHEBN0023344967
Reproduction Date:

Title: Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: United States federal preemption law, Federal preemption, List of environmental lawsuits
Collection:
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC

Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC
Argued January 10, 2005
Decided April 27, 2005
Full case name Dennis Bates, et al., Petitioners v. Dow Agrosciences LLC
Docket nos. 03-388
Citations 544 U.S. 431 (more)
Prior history Summary judgment for defendants, 436 F. Supp. 2d 132 (Me. 2006); reversed, 501 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2007); cert. granted, 552 U.S. ___ (2008)
Holding
Federal law does not preempt the application of state law in insecticide labeling requirements. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Stevens, joined by Rehnquist, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence Breyer
Concur/dissent Thomas, joined by Scalia
Laws applied
15 U.S.C. § 1334(b) (Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 5, § 207(Supp. 2008) (Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act)

Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case.

Background

Dow's Strongarm pesticide damaged the crop of a group of Texas peanut farmers. The district court held that FIFRA preempted their claims.

The question before the Court was which, if any, state-law crop damage claims are preempted by FIFRA?

Opinion of the Court

The court held that state labelling laws that were parallel or consistent with Federal laws are not preempted by FIFRA.

A jury decision would not constitute a "requirement", as defined previously by the court in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 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

References

  • http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-388.ZS.html
  • http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs_04-05/03-388Pet.pdf
  • http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=03-388

External links

  • http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/jan05.html


This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.