Bibliographic Citation
| Document | For copies of Journal Articles, please contact the Publisher or your local public or university library and refer to the information in the Resource Relation field. For copies of other documents, please see the Availability, Publisher, Research Organization, Resource Relation and/or Author (affiliation information) fields and/or Document Availability. |
|---|---|
| Title | Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. strengthens federal preemption defense in pesticide tort litigation |
| Creator/Author | Stevens, R.W. [George Washington Univ. National Law Center, Washington, DC (United States)] |
| Publication Date | 1993 Dec 31 |
| OSTI Identifier | OSTI ID: 466986 |
| Other Number(s) | Journal ID: TILJED; ISSN 0885-856X; TRN: TRN: 97:001704-0004 |
| Resource Type | Journal Article |
| Resource Relation | Journal Name: Tort and Insurance Law Journal; Journal Volume: 28; Journal Issue: 4; Other Information: PBD: Sum 1993 |
| Subject | 99 MATHEMATICS, COMPUTERS, INFORMATION SCIENCE, MANAGEMENT, LAW, MISCELLANEOUS; PESTICIDES; LAWSUITS |
| Description/Abstract | When the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (Cigarette Act) of 1969 preempted plaintiff`s failure to warn claims in Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., the decision directly affected a far wider range of product liability cases than those involving only cigarettes. This article analyzes how Cipollone affects the defense raised in pesticide injury cases that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) preempts state common law failure to warn claims. The Eleventh Circuit in Papas v. Upjohn Co. (Papas I), declining to follow contrary authority, held that FIFRA impliedly preempted state law claims that pesticides were inadequately labeled. On a petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Eleventh Circuit for reconsideration in light of Cipollone. Recently, the Eleventh Circuit in Papas v. Upjohn Co. (Papas II) applied Cipollone to hold that FIFRA expressly preempts the state law claims. This article argues that Papas II correctly held, after Cipollone, that FIFRA preempts the state inadequate labeling and failure to warn claims in pesticide cases. 86 refs. |
| Country of Publication | United States |
| Language | English |
| Format | Medium: X; Size: pp. 870-880 |
| System Entry Date | 2008 Feb 04 |
Top | |
Last Updated: 11/19/2009