Search for: ""Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC" OR "544 U.S. 431""
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2018, 7:24 am
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005) in stating that “the question is not whether the statute reaches conduct beyond such labeling,” but “whether the statute ‘impose[s] a labeling requirement that diverges from those set out in FIFRA and its implementing regulations’” (emphasis in original). [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 1:43 pm
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 445 (2005) (rejecting a preemption challenge, and holding that the term 'requirement' in a different statute means 'a rule of law that must be obeyed'). [read post]
19 Mar 2008, 6:04 am
Dow Agrosciences, LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), where the EPA favored preemption, and the Supreme Court recognized that some claims might be preempted, but held the particular claim before it was not.Other than that, however, the Supreme Court has always ruled in favor of the position advocated by the agency.Thus, in Geier v. [read post]
17 Oct 2017, 2:15 pm
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 449 (2005). [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 7:40 am
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005)), but she could just have easily cited any number of drug or device cases that likewise would have gone against her. [read post]
19 Jul 2008, 11:07 am
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005). [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 12:50 pm
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), which involved an herbicide, not regulated by the FDA at all). [read post]
17 Feb 2009, 3:22 pm
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 449 (2005)); see also id. at 23-24. [read post]
6 Sep 2007, 8:13 am
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, (2005), and found it wasn't running on all cylinders.Apparently we aren't the only ones. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 7:13 am
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431, 449 (2005). . . . [read post]
1 Oct 2010, 9:26 am
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), described that presumption in similar terms: "[E]ven if [the preemptive] alternative were just as plausible . . . we would nevertheless have a duty to accept the reading that disfavors preemption. [read post]
24 Apr 2008, 4:07 am
Plaintiffs' Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001), and Geier v. [read post]
29 Nov 2007, 10:36 am
Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996). [read post]
1 Nov 2007, 1:32 pm
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), isn't relevant since EPA in Bates wasn't purporting to evaluate substantively the manufacturer's statements.Finally, Medtronic closes strong, with policy reasons supporting preemption. [read post]
23 Oct 2008, 9:03 am
Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 64 (2002) (quoting English); American Insurance Ass'n v. [read post]
8 Oct 2008, 11:50 am
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), as creating an irrebuttable presumption against preemption that overrode congressional intent:The Court of Appeals viewed Bates as having drastically changed this traditional preemption analysis, so as to make the presumption against preemption irrebuttable and to require examination of the statutory language alone. [read post]
12 Feb 2008, 8:29 am
" Buckman Co. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2008, 6:31 pm
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005):In undertaking a pre-emption analysis. . ., a court should bear in mind the concept of equivalence. [read post]
11 Dec 2008, 7:06 pm
Dow Agrosciences LLC, 544 U.S. 431 (2005), Buckman Co. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 12:02 pm
A little more than a year ago, back in February 2008, a majority of the Supreme Court stated, in Riegel v. [read post]
