bates
et
al
dow
agrosciences
llc
argued
january
decided
april
petitioner
texas
peanut
farmers
allege
crops
severely
damaged
application
respondent
dow
strongarm
pesticide
environmental
protection
agency
epa
registered
pursuant
authority
federal
insecticide
fungicide
rodenticide
act
fifra
petitioners
gave
dow
notice
intent
sue
claiming
strongarm
label
recommended
use
areas
dow
knew
known
stunt
growth
peanuts
soil
ph
levels
least
response
dow
sought
declaratory
judgment
federal
district
asserting
fifra
petitioners
claims
petitioners
counterclaimed
raising
several
claims
sounding
strict
liability
negligence
fraud
breach
express
warranty
district
rejected
one
claim
grounds
found
others
barred
fifra
provision
affirming
fifth
circuit
held
expressly
claims
judgment
dow
induce
alter
product
label
held
fifra
comprehensively
amended
manufacturer
must
obtain
permission
market
pesticide
submitting
proposed
label
supporting
data
epa
register
pesticide
efficacious
cause
unreasonable
adverse
effects
humans
environment
label
complies
statute
misbranding
prohibition
pesticide
misbranded
label
example
contains
statement
false
misleading
lacks
adequate
instructions
warnings
state
may
regulate
sale
use
federally
registered
pesticides
extent
regulation
permit
sales
uses
prohibited
fifra
uch
state
shall
impose
continue
effect
requirements
labeling
packaging
addition
different
required
fifra
though
tort
litigation
pesticide
manufacturers
common
feature
legal
landscape
held
cipollone
liggett
group
term
requirement
public
health
cigarette
smoking
act
included
duties
therefore
certain
tort
claims
cigarette
companies
courts
began
holding
claims
petitioners
pp
fifra
provision
applies
requirements
labeling
packaging
fifth
circuit
correct
requirements
embraces
positive
enactments
duties
erred
supposing
petitioners
defective
design
defective
manufacture
negligent
testing
breach
express
warranty
claims
premised
requirements
labeling
packaging
none
rules
upon
claims
based
requires
manufacturers
label
package
products
particular
way
fifth
circuit
reached
contrary
conclusion
reasoning
finding
liability
claims
induce
dow
alter
label
error
prohibitions
apply
requirements
requirement
rule
law
must
obeyed
event
jury
verdict
merely
motives
optional
decision
requirement
proper
inquiry
calls
examination
elements
duty
issue
speculation
whether
jury
verdict
prompt
manufacturer
change
label
pp
petitioners
fraud
claims
contrast
based
rules
qualify
requirements
labeling
packaging
since
rules
set
standard
product
labeling
dow
alleged
violated
rules
subject
automatically
follow
unlike
clause
cipollone
prohibits
labeling
requirements
addition
different
fifra
labeling
requirements
thus
statutory
rule
impose
labeling
requirement
diverges
set
fifra
implementing
regulations
requirement
equivalent
fully
consistent
fifra
labeling
standards
parallel
requirements
reading
finds
strong
support
medtronic
lohr
thus
although
fifra
provide
federal
remedy
injured
result
manufacturer
violation
fifra
labeling
requirements
nothing
precludes
providing
remedy
dow
contrary
reading
fails
make
sense
phrase
addition
different
even
dow
offered
plausible
alternative
reading
duty
accept
reading
disfavoring
see
new
york
state
conference
blue
cross
blue
shield
plans
travelers
ins
long
history
tort
litigation
manufacturers
poisonous
substances
adds
force
presumption
congress
surely
expressed
intention
clearly
meant
deprive
injured
parties
long
available
form
compensation
moreover
history
emphasizes
importance
providing
incentive
manufacturers
use
utmost
care
distributing
inherently
dangerous
items
finally
policy
objections
raised
reading
unpersuasive
pp
parallel
requirements
reading
labeling
requirement
must
equivalent
federal
counterpart
avoid
state
law
need
however
explicitly
incorporate
fifra
standards
element
cause
action
received
sufficient
briefing
whether
texas
law
governing
petitioners
fraud
claims
equivalent
fifra
misbranding
standards
relevant
regulations
fifth
circuit
resolve
issue
first
instance
pp
vacated
remanded
stevens
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
kennedy
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
breyer
filed
concurring
opinion
thomas
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
scalia
joined
dennis
bates
et
petitioners
dow
agrosciences
llc
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
april
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
petitioners
texas
peanut
farmers
allege
growing
season
crops
severely
damaged
application
respondent
newly
marketed
pesticide
named
strongarm
question
presented
whether
federal
insecticide
fungicide
rodenticide
act
fifra
et
seq
ed
supp
ii
claims
damages
pursuant
authority
fifra
environmental
protection
agency
epa
conditionally
registered
strongarm
march
thereby
granting
respondent
dow
permission
sell
pesticide
weed
dow
obtained
registration
time
market
strongarm
texas
farmers
normally
plant
peanut
crops
around
may
according
petitioners
whose
version
facts
assume
true
stage
dow
knew
known
strongarm
stunt
growth
peanuts
soils
ph
levels
nevertheless
strongarm
label
stated
use
strongarm
recommended
areas
peanuts
grown
app
dow
agents
made
equivalent
representations
sales
pitches
petitioners
petitioners
applied
strongarm
farms
whose
soils
ph
levels
higher
typical
western
texas
pesticide
severely
damaged
peanut
crops
failing
control
growth
weeds
farmers
reported
problems
dow
sent
experts
inspect
crops
meanwhile
dow
reregistered
strongarm
label
epa
prior
growing
season
epa
approved
supplemental
label
istribution
se
nly
new
mexico
oklahoma
texas
three
peanut
farmers
experienced
crop
damage
new
label
contained
following
warning
apply
strongarm
soils
ph
greater
unsuccessful
negotiations
dow
petitioners
gave
dow
notice
intent
bring
suit
required
texas
deceptive
trade
protection
hereinafter
texas
dtpa
response
dow
filed
declaratory
judgment
action
federal
district
asserting
petitioners
claims
expressly
impliedly
fifra
petitioners
turn
brought
counterclaims
including
tort
claims
sounding
strict
liability
negligence
also
alleged
fraud
breach
warranty
violation
texas
dtpa
district
granted
dow
motion
summary
judgment
rejecting
one
claim
grounds
dismissing
remainder
expressly
provides
shall
impose
continue
effect
requirements
labeling
packaging
addition
different
required
subchapter
appeals
affirmed
read
claim
judgment
dow
induce
alter
product
label
held
petitioners
fraud
warranty
deceptive
trade
practices
claims
focused
oral
statements
dow
agents
differ
statements
made
product
label
success
claims
give
dow
strong
incentive
change
label
claims
thus
also
found
petitioners
strict
liability
claim
alleging
defective
design
essentially
disguised
claim
therefore
reasoned
one
escape
heart
farmers
grievance
strongarm
dangerous
peanut
crops
soil
ph
level
disclosed
inescapable
success
claim
necessarily
induce
dow
alter
strongarm
label
employed
similar
reasoning
find
negligent
testing
negligent
manufacture
claims
well
decision
consistent
majority
courts
well
several
state
high
conflicted
decisions
views
epa
set
forth
amicus
curiae
brief
filed
california
granted
certiorari
resolve
conflict
ii
prior
provided
primary
possibly
exclusive
source
regulatory
control
distribution
poisonous
substances
federal
government
first
effort
regulation
area
insecticide
act
stat
fifra
originally
enacted
ch
stat
primarily
dealt
licensing
labeling
original
version
fifra
pesticides
sold
interstate
commerce
registered
secretary
agriculture
secretary
register
pesticide
complied
statute
labeling
standards
determined
efficacious
epa
assumed
responsibility
registration
process
spurred
growing
environmental
safety
concerns
congress
adopted
extensive
transformed
fifra
labeling
law
comprehensive
regulatory
statute
ruckelshaus
monsanto
amended
fifra
regulated
use
well
sale
labeling
pesticides
regulated
pesticides
produced
sold
intrastate
interstate
commerce
provided
review
cancellation
suspension
registration
gave
epa
greater
enforcement
authority
amendments
also
imposed
new
criterion
registration
environmental
safety
see
generally
grad
treatise
environmental
law
tracing
fifra
statutory
evolution
fifra
currently
stands
manufacturer
seeking
register
pesticide
must
submit
proposed
label
epa
well
certain
supporting
data
agency
register
pesticide
determines
pesticide
efficacious
caveat
discussed
cause
unreasonable
adverse
effects
humans
environment
bb
label
complies
statute
prohibition
misbranding
cfr
pesticide
misbranded
label
contains
statement
false
misleading
particular
including
false
misleading
statement
concerning
efficacy
pesticide
cfr
ii
pesticide
also
misbranded
label
contain
adequate
instructions
use
label
omits
necessary
warnings
cautionary
statements
unlawful
statute
sell
pesticide
registered
nevertheless
misbranded
manufacturers
continuing
obligation
adhere
fifra
labeling
requirements
see
also
registration
prima
facie
evidence
pesticide
labeling
comply
statute
requirements
registration
provide
defense
violation
statute
manufacturer
may
seek
approval
amend
label
additionally
manufacturers
duty
report
incidents
involving
pesticide
toxic
effects
may
adequately
reflected
label
warnings
cfr
epa
may
institute
cancellation
proceedings
take
enforcement
action
determines
registered
pesticide
section
added
amendments
addresses
continuing
role
pesticide
regulation
currently
codified
provides
general
state
may
regulate
sale
use
federally
registered
pesticide
device
state
extent
regulation
permit
sale
use
prohibited
subchapter
uniformity
state
shall
impose
continue
effect
requirements
labeling
packaging
addition
different
required
subchapter
additional
uses
state
may
provide
registration
additional
uses
federally
registered
pesticides
formulated
distribution
use
within
state
meet
special
local
needs
accord
purposes
subchapter
registration
use
previously
denied
disapproved
canceled
administrator
registration
shall
deemed
registration
section
title
purposes
subchapter
shall
authorize
distribution
use
within
state
congress
amended
fifra
stat
time
response
epa
concern
evaluation
pesticide
efficacy
registration
process
diverted
many
resources
task
assessing
environmental
health
dangers
posed
pesticides
congress
addressed
problem
authorizing
epa
waive
data
requirements
pertaining
efficacy
thus
permitting
agency
register
pesticide
without
confirming
efficacy
claims
made
label
epa
invoked
grant
permission
issued
general
waiver
efficacy
review
limited
qualifications
applicable
see
fed
reg
cfr
notice
published
years
later
epa
confirmed
stopped
evaluating
pesticide
efficacy
routine
label
approvals
almost
two
decades
ago
pesticide
registration
notice
june
available
app
clarified
epa
approval
pesticide
label
reflect
determination
part
epa
pesticide
efficacious
damage
crops
cause
property
damage
app
notice
also
referred
earlier
statement
epa
observed
producers
aware
potentially
subject
damage
suits
user
community
products
prove
ineffective
actual
use
app
quoting
fed
reg
general
waiver
place
time
strongarm
registration
thus
epa
never
passed
accuracy
statement
strongarm
original
label
recommending
product
use
areas
peanuts
grown
although
modern
version
fifra
enacted
three
decades
ago
never
addressed
whether
statute
tort
claims
arising
state
law
courts
entertained
tort
litigation
pesticide
manufacturers
since
well
passage
fifra
litigation
common
feature
legal
landscape
time
indeed
least
decade
amendments
arguments
tort
suits
either
advanced
unsuccessful
see
ferebee
chevron
chemical
cadc
held
cipollone
liggett
group
term
requirement
prohibition
public
health
cigarette
smoking
act
included
duties
therefore
certain
tort
claims
cigarette
companies
groundswell
federal
state
decisions
emerged
holding
claims
like
advanced
litigation
addressed
fifra
different
context
wisconsin
public
intervenor
mortier
considered
claim
small
town
ordinance
requiring
special
permit
aerial
application
pesticides
although
ordinance
imposed
restrictions
required
fifra
epa
regulation
unanimously
rejected
claim
opinion
noted
fifra
sufficiently
comprehensive
statute
justify
inference
congress
occupied
field
exclusion
contrary
statute
leaves
ample
room
localities
supplement
federal
efforts
even
absent
express
regulatory
authorization
part
supplementary
role
ample
authority
review
pesticide
labels
ensure
comply
federal
state
labeling
nothing
text
fifra
prevent
state
making
violation
federal
labeling
packaging
requirement
state
offense
thereby
imposing
sanctions
pesticide
manufacturers
violate
federal
law
imposition
state
sanctions
violating
state
rules
merely
duplicate
federal
requirements
equally
consistent
text
iii
background
consider
whether
petitioners
reads
follows
state
shall
impose
continue
effect
requirements
labeling
packaging
addition
different
required
subchapter
introductory
words
state
appear
limit
coverage
subsection
described
preceding
subsection
texas
state
regulates
sale
use
federally
registered
pesticides
permit
sales
uses
prohibited
fifra
therefore
beyond
dispute
subsection
applicable
case
prohibitions
apply
requirements
occurrence
merely
motivates
optional
decision
qualify
requirement
appeals
therefore
quite
wrong
assumed
event
jury
verdict
might
induce
pesticide
manufacturer
change
label
viewed
requirement
appeals
however
correctly
hold
term
requirements
reaches
beyond
positive
enactments
statutes
regulations
embrace
duties
decision
cipollone
supports
conclusion
see
plurality
opinion
phrase
requirement
prohibition
sweeps
broadly
suggests
distinction
positive
enactments
common
law
contrary
words
easily
encompass
obligations
take
form
rules
see
also
scalia
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
use
requirements
clause
may
invariably
carry
meaning
think
best
reading
may
rules
well
statutes
regulations
says
nothing
scope
particular
state
rule
must
satisfy
two
conditions
first
must
requirement
labeling
packaging
rules
governing
design
product
example
second
must
impose
labeling
packaging
requirement
addition
different
required
subchapter
state
regulation
requiring
word
poison
appear
red
letters
instance
epa
regulation
imposed
requirement
perfectly
clear
many
rules
upon
petitioners
rely
satisfy
first
condition
rules
require
manufacturers
design
reasonably
safe
products
use
due
care
conducting
appropriate
testing
products
market
products
free
manufacturing
defects
honor
express
warranties
contractual
commitments
plainly
qualify
requirements
labeling
packaging
none
rules
requires
manufacturers
label
package
products
particular
way
thus
petitioners
claims
defective
design
defective
manufacture
negligent
testing
breach
express
warranty
sure
dow
express
warranty
located
strongarm
cause
action
express
warranty
asks
manufacturer
make
good
contractual
commitment
voluntarily
undertook
placing
warranty
rule
require
manufacturer
make
express
warranty
event
manufacturer
elects
say
anything
particular
warranty
rule
impose
requirement
labeling
packaging
see
plurality
opinion
arriving
different
conclusion
reasoned
finding
liability
claims
induce
dow
alter
label
test
finds
support
text
speaks
requirements
requirement
rule
law
must
obeyed
event
jury
verdict
merely
motivates
optional
decision
requirement
proper
inquiry
calls
examination
elements
duty
issue
see
cipollone
call
speculation
whether
jury
verdict
prompt
manufacturer
take
particular
action
question
event
depend
variety
calculations
best
left
manufacturer
accountants
inducement
test
unquestionably
overbroad
impeach
many
genuine
design
defect
claims
dow
concedes
design
defect
claim
successful
surely
induce
manufacturer
alter
label
reflect
change
list
ingredients
change
instructions
use
necessitated
improvement
product
design
moreover
inducement
test
entirely
consistent
confirms
state
broad
authority
regulate
sale
use
state
agency
may
ban
sale
pesticide
finds
instance
one
pesticide
uses
unsafe
ban
might
well
induce
manufacturer
change
label
warn
questioned
use
inducement
test
however
restriction
anomalously
qualify
labeling
requirement
highly
unlikely
congress
endeavored
draw
line
type
indirect
pressure
caused
state
power
impose
sales
use
restrictions
even
attenuated
pressure
exerted
suits
inducement
test
supported
either
text
structure
statute
unlike
claims
petitioners
fraud
claims
premised
rules
qualify
requirements
labeling
packaging
rules
set
standard
product
labeling
strongarm
label
alleged
violated
containing
false
statements
inadequate
warnings
courts
appeal
rightly
found
guidance
cipollone
interpretation
requirements
courts
quickly
concluded
claims
fifra
cipollone
without
paying
attention
rather
obvious
textual
differences
two
unlike
clause
issue
prohibits
labeling
packaging
requirements
addition
different
labeling
packaging
requirements
fifra
thus
labeling
requirement
equivalent
fully
consistent
fifra
misbranding
provisions
petitioners
argue
claims
based
fraud
duties
equivalent
fifra
requirements
pesticide
label
contain
false
misleading
statements
inadequate
instructions
warnings
agree
petitioners
insofar
hold
state
law
need
explicitly
incorporate
fifra
standards
element
cause
action
order
survive
discuss
however
leave
appeals
decide
first
instance
whether
particular
duties
equivalent
fifra
misbranding
standards
parallel
requirements
reading
adopt
today
finds
strong
support
medtronic
lohr
addressing
similarly
worded
provision
statute
regulating
medical
devices
found
othing
denies
florida
right
provide
traditional
damages
remedy
violations
duties
duties
parallel
federal
requirements
justice
explained
separate
opinion
state
cause
action
seeks
enforce
federal
requirement
impose
requirement
addition
requirements
federal
law
sure
threat
damages
remedy
give
manufacturers
additional
cause
comply
requirements
imposed
state
federal
law
differ
section
preclude
imposing
different
additional
remedies
different
additional
requirements
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
accordingly
although
fifra
provide
federal
remedy
farmers
others
injured
result
manufacturer
violation
fifra
labeling
requirements
nothing
precludes
providing
remedy
dow
joined
amicus
curiae
argues
parallel
requirements
reading
give
juries
authority
give
content
fifra
misbranding
prohibition
establishing
requirements
different
one
defined
fifra
intended
congress
interpreted
authoritatively
epa
brief
respondent
see
also
brief
amicus
curiae
view
however
clear
text
authority
medtronic
easily
avoided
conspicuously
absent
submissions
dow
plausible
alternative
interpretation
addition
different
give
phrase
meaning
instead
appear
favor
reading
words
statute
leave
following
state
shall
impose
continue
effect
requirements
labeling
packaging
amputated
version
doubt
clearly
succinctly
commanded
state
requirements
concerning
labeling
congress
added
remainder
provision
evidence
intent
draw
distinction
state
labeling
requirements
even
dow
offered
us
plausible
alternative
reading
indeed
even
alternative
plausible
reading
text
nevertheless
duty
accept
reading
disfavors
ecause
independent
sovereigns
federal
system
long
presumed
congress
cavalierly
causes
action
medtronic
quoting
rice
santa
fe
elevator
see
also
medtronic
reading
one
makes
sense
phrase
one
favored
canons
interpretation
notion
fifra
contains
nonambiguous
command
types
tort
claims
parallel
fifra
misbranding
requirements
particularly
dubious
given
five
years
ago
advocated
interpretation
adopt
long
history
tort
litigation
manufacturers
poisonous
substances
adds
force
basic
presumption
congress
intended
deprive
injured
parties
long
available
form
compensation
surely
expressed
intent
clearly
see
silkwood
moreover
history
emphasizes
importance
providing
incentive
manufacturers
use
utmost
care
business
distributing
inherently
dangerous
items
see
mortier
stating
amendments
goal
strengthen
existing
labeling
requirements
ensure
requirements
followed
practice
particularly
given
congress
amended
fifra
allow
epa
waive
efficacy
review
newly
registered
pesticides
course
amendments
made
technical
changes
seems
unlikely
congress
considered
relatively
obscure
provision
like
give
pesticide
manufacturers
virtual
immunity
certain
forms
tort
liability
overenforcement
fifra
misbranding
prohibition
creates
risk
imposing
unnecessary
financial
burdens
manufacturers
creates
financial
risks
consumers
risks
affect
safety
environment
well
finally
find
policy
objections
raised
reading
unpersuasive
dow
greatly
overstate
degree
uniformity
centralization
characterizes
fifra
fact
statute
authorizes
relatively
decentralized
scheme
preserves
broad
role
state
regulation
see
significantly
may
ban
restrict
uses
pesticides
epa
approved
may
also
register
subject
certain
restrictions
pesticides
uses
beyond
approved
epa
see
also
authorizing
epa
grant
primary
enforcement
responsibility
use
violations
literal
reading
fully
consistent
concurrent
authority
federal
state
governments
sphere
private
remedies
enforce
federal
misbranding
requirements
seem
aid
rather
hinder
functioning
fifra
unlike
cigarette
labeling
law
issue
cipollone
prescribed
certain
immutable
warning
statements
fifra
contemplates
pesticide
labels
evolve
time
manufacturers
gain
information
products
performance
diverse
settings
one
explained
tort
suits
serve
catalyst
process
encouraging
plaintiffs
bring
suit
injuries
previously
recognized
traceable
pesticides
pesticide
issue
state
tort
action
kind
review
may
aid
exposure
new
dangers
associated
pesticides
successful
actions
sort
may
lead
manufacturers
petition
epa
allow
detailed
labelling
products
alternatively
epa
may
decide
revised
labels
required
light
new
information
brought
attention
common
law
suits
addition
specter
damage
actions
may
provide
manufacturers
added
dynamic
incentives
continue
keep
abreast
possible
injuries
stemming
use
product
forestall
actions
product
improvement
ferebee
dow
exaggerate
disruptive
effects
using
suits
enforce
prohibition
misbranding
fifra
prohibited
inaccurate
representations
inadequate
warnings
since
enactment
tort
suits
alleging
claims
common
well
date
continued
beyond
amendments
pointed
evidence
tort
suits
led
fifra
standards
otherwise
created
real
hardship
manufacturers
epa
indeed
much
period
epa
appears
welcomed
tort
suits
true
properly
instructed
juries
might
occasion
reach
contrary
conclusions
similar
issue
misbranding
reason
think
occurrences
frequent
result
difficulties
beyond
regularly
experienced
manufacturers
products
everyday
bear
risk
conflicting
jury
verdicts
moreover
bears
noting
lay
juries
sense
anathema
fifra
scheme
criminal
prosecutions
violation
fifra
provisions
see
juries
necessarily
pass
allegations
misbranding
sum
interpretation
retains
narrow
still
important
role
main
competing
state
labeling
standards
imagine
different
labeling
regimes
prescribing
color
font
size
wording
warnings
create
significant
inefficiencies
provision
also
statutory
rule
impose
labeling
requirement
diverges
set
fifra
implementing
regulations
however
state
rules
fully
consistent
federal
requirements
settled
interpretation
still
remains
decided
whether
provision
petitioners
fraud
claims
received
sufficient
briefing
involves
questions
texas
law
remand
appeals
emphasize
labeling
requirement
must
fact
equivalent
requirement
fifra
order
survive
example
appeals
determine
element
falsity
texas
definition
fraud
imposed
broader
obligation
fifra
requirement
labels
contain
false
misleading
statements
cause
action
extent
difference
requirements
must
also
measured
relevant
epa
regulations
give
content
fifra
misbranding
standards
example
claim
alleging
given
pesticide
label
stated
danger
instead
subdued
caution
inconsistent
cfr
specifically
assigns
warnings
particular
classes
pesticides
based
undertaking
analysis
pleadings
stage
case
bear
mind
concept
equivalence
survive
requirement
need
phrased
identical
language
corresponding
fifra
requirement
indeed
surprising
requirement
used
phraseology
fifra
case
proceeds
trial
jury
instructions
must
ensure
nominally
equivalent
labeling
requirements
genuinely
equivalent
defendant
requests
instruct
jury
relevant
fifra
misbranding
standards
well
regulations
add
content
standards
manufacturer
held
liable
state
labeling
requirement
subject
unless
manufacturer
also
liable
misbranding
defined
fifra
judgment
appeals
vacated
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
dennis
bates
et
petitioners
dow
agrosciences
llc
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
april
justice
breyer
concurring
write
separately
stress
practical
importance
statement
requirements
must
measured
relevant
environmental
protection
agency
regulations
give
content
federal
insecticide
fungicide
rodenticide
act
misbranding
standards
ante
medtronic
lohr
pointed
administrative
agency
food
drug
administration
legal
authority
within
ordinary
administrative
constraints
promulgate
agency
rules
determine
effect
rules
light
agency
special
understanding
whether
extent
state
requirements
may
interfere
federal
objectives
opinion
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
epa
enjoys
similar
authority
see
suggested
medtronic
federal
agency
charged
administering
statute
often
better
able
courts
determine
extent
state
liability
rules
mirror
distort
federal
requirements
thus
epa
may
prove
better
able
courts
determine
whether
general
state
tort
liability
rules
simply
help
expose
dangers
associated
pesticides
ante
quoting
ferebee
chevron
chemical
cadc
instead
bring
counterproductive
requirements
ante
quoting
brief
respondent
within
appropriate
legal
administrative
constraints
act
accordingly
cf
hillsborough
county
automated
medical
laboratories
agencies
monitor
dynamic
federal
local
requirements
promulgate
regulations
local
legislation
interferes
federal
goals
emphasizing
importance
agency
role
overseeing
fifra
future
implementation
join
opinion
dennis
bates
et
petitioners
dow
agrosciences
llc
writ
certiorari
appeals
fifth
circuit
april
justice
thomas
justice
scalia
joins
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
agree
term
requirements
federal
insecticide
fungicide
rodenticide
act
fifra
includes
duties
labeling
packaging
ante
also
agree
damages
claims
may
impose
requirements
addition
different
fifra
ante
free
impose
liability
predicated
violation
federal
standards
set
forth
fifra
accompanying
regulations
promulgated
environmental
protection
agency
may
impose
liability
labeling
requirements
predicated
distinct
state
standards
care
section
permits
add
remedies
alter
augment
substantive
rules
governing
liability
labeling
see
medtronic
lohr
concurring
part
dissenting
part
parties
argued
dow
violated
fifra
labeling
standards
majority
properly
remands
district
consider
whether
texas
law
mirrors
federal
standards
however
majority
omits
step
reasoning
made
explicit
cause
action
even
specific
labeling
nevertheless
imposes
labeling
requirement
addition
different
fifra
attaches
liability
statements
label
produce
liability
fifra
cause
action
adds
supplemental
requirement
truthfulness
fifra
requirement
labeling
statements
false
misleading
fraud
claims
properly
remanded
determine
whether
state
federal
standards
statements
application
case
see
ante
reasoning
majority
mistreats
two
sets
petitioners
claims
first
petitioners
claims
remanded
analysis
contrary
majority
disposition
see
ante
extent
texas
law
warranty
imposes
liability
statements
label
fifra
texas
law
see
cipollone
liggett
group
scalia
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
second
majority
holds
petitioners
claim
texas
deceptive
trade
protection
act
dtpa
extent
claim
ante
however
dtpa
claim
also
fact
perhaps
exclusively
claim
false
misleading
representations
label
app
therefore
aspects
dtpa
claim
remanded
dtpa
claim
like
petitioners
fraud
claims
insofar
imposes
liability
label
content
fifra
also
note
despite
majority
reference
claim
ante
petitioners
advanced
actual
claim
instead
appeals
treated
petitioners
claims
negligent
testing
defective
design
manufacture
disguised
claim
failure
warn
petitioners
offer
evidence
remand
dow
erred
testing
design
manufacture
strongarm
claims
fail
merits
point
take
majority
agree
ante
need
go
resolve
case
ordinary
meaning
terms
makes
plain
petitioners
causes
action
may
yet
majority
advances
several
arguments
designed
tip
scales
favor
federal
government
arguments
addition
unnecessary
unpersuasive
instance
majority
presumption
requires
choosing
interpretation
disfavors
ante
presumption
apply
however
congress
included
within
statute
express
provision
see
cipollone
liggett
group
supra
scalia
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
nelson
preemption
rev
section
explicit
statement
fifra
claims
thus
task
determine
claims
without
slanting
inquiry
favor
either
federal
government
history
tort
litigation
manufacturers
also
irrelevant
ante
know
without
looking
text
whether
fifra
preserved
tradition
displaced
majority
notes
congress
must
intended
preserve
suits
legislative
history
indicate
congress
meant
abrogate
suits
ante
see
also
small
ante
thomas
dissenting
criticizing
novel
practice
relying
silence
legislative
history
koons
buick
pontiac
gmc
nigh
slip
scalia
dissenting
enacting
provision
enough
either
congress
must
speak
added
specificity
statute
avoid
presumption
individual
members
congress
congressional
committees
must
display
preference
legislative
record
avoid
new
canon
congressional
silence
believe
test
agrees
stands
abrogate
many
causes
action
remand
example
petitioners
may
unable
pursue
traditional
suit
texas
law
fraud
finally
allowing
additional
remedies
likely
aids
enforcing
fifra
misbranding
requirements
ante
congress
strike
balance
state
tort
suits
federal
regulation
need
determine
ordinary
meaning
majority
rightly
declines
address
respondent
argument
petitioners
claims
subject
types
brief
respondent
instance
majority
ask
whether
fifra
regulatory
scheme
pervasive
federal
interest
labeling
dominant
room
provide
additional
remedies
rice
santa
fe
elevator
majority
ask
whether
enforcement
labeling
claims
stan
obstacle
accomplishment
execution
full
purposes
objectives
congress
enacting
fifra
hines
davidowitz
today
decision
thus
comports
increasing
reluctance
expand
federal
statutes
beyond
terms
doctrines
implied
see
camps
town
harrison
thomas
dissenting
reluctance
reflects
analysis
freewheeling
judicial
inquiry
whether
state
statute
tension
federal
objectives
gade
national
solid
wastes
management
kennedy
concurring
part
concurring
judgment
inquiry
whether
ordinary
meanings
state
federal
law
conflict
footnotes
strongarm
commonly
called
herbicide
classified
pesticide
purposes
fifra
see
term
ph
stands
pondus
hydrogenii
potential
hydrogen
refers
acidity
soil
tex
bus
com
code
ann
et
seq
west
see
grenier
vermont
log
buildings
kuiper
american
cyanamid
netland
hess
clark
see
etcheverry
service
cal
see
ferebee
chevron
chemical
cadc
american
cyanamid
geye
tex
see
brief
amicus
curiae
etcheverry
cal
sup
hereinafter
brief
amicus
curiae
etcheverry
solicitor
general
since
adopted
contrary
position
see
brief
amicus
curiae
secretary
declined
registration
manufacturer
refused
make
changes
secretary
required
register
pesticide
protest
however
congress
eliminated
procedure
required
disappointed
manufacturers
challenge
denial
registration
administrative
review
stat
federal
environmental
pesticide
control
act
stat
pesticide
label
must
also
conspicuously
display
statement
information
specifically
required
statute
implementing
regulations
mention
examples
label
must
contain
name
address
producer
product
registration
number
ingredient
statement
cfr
ii
iv
vi
epa
may
issue
stop
sale
use
removal
orders
may
seize
offending
products
manufacturers
may
subjected
civil
criminal
penalties
violating
fifra
requirements
see
mossrud
lee
west
disinfecting
plummer
app
mccrossin
noyes
cutler
white
national
bank
commerce
cal
app
see
hursh
annotation
liability
manufacturer
seller
injury
caused
animal
feed
medicines
crop
sprays
fertilizers
insecticides
rodenticides
similar
products
duty
due
reasonable
care
binds
manufacturers
sellers
products
kind
duty
care
includes
duty
warn
dangers
duty
part
manufacturer
subject
product
reasonable
tests
duty
part
seller
subject
product
reasonable
inspection
footnotes
omitted
collecting
cases
epa
website
explains
federal
law
requires
selling
distributing
pesticide
person
company
must
obtain
registration
license
epa
conduct
review
pesticide
label
ensure
complies
federal
labeling
requirements
additional
state
restrictions
use
epa
pesticides
regulating
pesticides
evaluating
potential
new
pesticides
uses
http
internet
materials
visited
apr
available
clerk
case
file
see
also
grad
treatise
environmental
law
state
labeling
requirements
pesticides
generally
parallel
fifra
reviewing
pesticide
statutes
briefing
record
leave
confusion
precise
claims
issue
light
posture
case
find
appropriate
address
following
claims
breach
express
warranty
fraud
violation
texas
dtpa
strict
liability
including
defective
design
defective
manufacture
negligent
testing
also
address
negligent
failure
warn
since
appeals
read
petitioners
allegations
support
claim
petitioners
press
claim
leave
determine
whether
may
proceed
claim
remand
course
express
view
whether
claims
viable
matter
texas
law
given
early
stage
litigation
opine
whether
petitioners
adduce
sufficient
evidence
support
claims
survive
summary
judgment
label
stated
dow
agrosciences
warrants
product
conforms
chemical
description
label
reasonably
fit
purposes
stated
label
used
strict
accordance
directions
subject
inherent
risks
set
forth
app
extent
petitioners
warranty
fraud
claims
based
oral
representations
made
dow
agents
fall
outside
text
independent
reason
fifra
defines
labeling
labels
written
printed
graphic
matter
accompany
pesticide
requirement
applied
sales
agent
oral
representations
requirement
labeling
packaging
appeals
held
petitioners
claim
texas
dtpa
insofar
act
provides
remedy
breach
express
warranty
citing
texas
law
petitioners
warranty
claim
claim
act
extent
courts
appeal
taken
similar
approach
see
netland
thus
task
determine
whether
netland
claims
essentially
challenge
bovinol
label
overall
design
pesticide
guide
analysis
must
ask
whether
seeking
avoid
liability
error
manufacturer
choose
alter
label
product
wisconsin
public
intervenor
mortier
noted
merely
declaratory
authority
retained
fifra
provision
serve
hand
back
powers
statute
impliedly
usurped
see
taylor
ag
industries
notable
difference
language
cigarette
act
language
fifra
shaw
dow
brands
even
dedicated
distinguish
statements
requirement
prohibition
based
smoking
health
shall
imposed
state
law
respect
advertising
promotion
cigarettes
packages
labeled
conformity
provisions
act
cipollone
added
even
may
necessary
matter
florida
law
prove
violations
result
negligent
conduct
created
unreasonable
hazard
users
product
additional
elements
cause
action
make
state
requirements
narrower
broader
federal
requirement
narrower
requirement
might
federal
rules
literal
sense
difference
surely
provide
strange
reason
finding
state
rule
insofar
duplicates
federal
rule
brief
amicus
curiae
etcheverry
see
also
brief
amicus
curiae
explaining
subsequent
change
view
answer
even
claims
dow
reading
tort
claims
remain
intact
given
inherently
dangerous
nature
pesticides
safety
gains
achieved
modifying
pesticide
design
improving
warnings
instructions
contained
label
see
brief
american
chemistry
council
amicus
curiae
legislative
history
amendments
suggests
congress
conflicting
state
labeling
regulations
mind
crafting
one
industry
representative
testified
might
want
word
might
want
red
lettering
others
orange
another
yellow
forth
ask
committee
therefore
recognize
congress
number
similar
regulatory
statutes
industry
need
uniformity
providing
act
hearings
federal
pesticide
control
act
house
committee
agriculture
statement
robert
ackerly
contrast
lengthy
legislative
history
barren
indication
congress
meant
abrogate
duties
long
owed
pesticide
manufacturers
dow
seem
argue
terms
texas
fraud
causes
action
equivalent
fifra
misbranding
standards
dow
identified
epa
regulations
refine
general
standards
way
relevant
petitioners
allegations
rather
dow
chosen
mount
broader
attack
parallel
requirements
interpretation
thus
seeming
argue
even
cause
action
expressly
incorporates
fifra
misbranding
provisions
see
brief
respondent
since
dow
benefit
construction
dow
allowed
address
matters
remand
present
appear
relatively
regulations
refine
elaborate
upon
fifra
broadly
phrased
misbranding
standards
extent
epa
promulgates
regulations
future
necessarily
affect
scope
footnotes
petitioners
counterclaim
expressly
disclaims
dow
violated
provision
fifra
app
first
amended
counterclaim