Van Horne v. Ben-Dov

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that field preemption cannot be inferred unless the federal scheme was so pervasive as to leave no room for the States to supplement it
• holding that FIFRA did not preempt state regulation requiring fumigators to post placards to warn bystanders
• holding that, under the Supremacy Clause, local ordinances are subject to same scrutiny applied to statewide laws
• stating that the 1972 amendments' goal was to \strengthen existing labeling requirements and ensure that these requirements were followed in practice\
• stating that the 1972 amendments' goal was to “strengthen existing labeling requirements and ensure that these requirements were followed in practice”
• holding that FIFRA does not preempt local regulation of pesticide use

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).