Higgins v. Monsanto Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that claim of strict liability in tort was not preempted by FIFRA
• holding inadequate-labeling and failure-towam claims are preempted by FIFRA but plaintiff’s claims based upon failure to disclose information to EPA are not preempted
• recognizing that “Papas II should not be read broadly”
• rejecting defendants’ contention that defective design claims unrelated to warning label should be preempted under FIFRA because they might still require a showing of the warning's adequacy
• “This court reads the operative word ‘and’ as indicating the Fourth Circuit’s intention to preempt only those express warranty claims that are [based on] EPA mandated [labeling].”
• “claims that do not challenge the labeling of the defendant’s product are not preempted”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).