127 Wash. 2d 50 - Goodwin v. Bacon’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably 127 Wash. 2d 67 - Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc. (1995), Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Products (1997)
23 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1334 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 360K (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 7 U.S.C. § 136A · 7 U.S.C. § 136G · 7 U.S.C. § 136V
Relies on San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc. · Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ny claims that point-of-sale signs, consumer notices, or other informational materials failed adequately to warn the plaintiff necessarily challenge the adequacy of the warnings provided on the product's labeling or packaging.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“A State may regulate the sale or use of any federally regulated pesticide or device... but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this subchapter.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The specific grant of authority in § 136v(a) consequently does not serve to hand back to the States powers that the statute had impliedly usurped. Rather, it acts to ensure that the States could continue to regulate use and sales even where, such as with regard to the banning of mislabeled products, a narrow pre-emptive overlap might occur.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.