MacDonald v. Monsanto Co.’s Empirical Analysis
27 F.3d 1021 · 1994
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 4 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably 127 Wash. 2d 67 - Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc. (1995), Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Products (1997)
36 federal appellate · 4 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 7 U.S.C. § 136 (Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972) · 7 U.S.C. § 136A · 7 U.S.C. § 136J · 7 U.S.C. § 136V
Relies on Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc. · Maryland v. Louisiana
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) In General A State may regulate the sale or use of any federally registered pesticide or device in the State, but only if and to the extent the regulation does not permit any sale or use prohibited by this sub-chapter. (b) Uniformity Such State shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from those required under this subchap-ter.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[section] 136v(b) does not preempt common law that is unconcerned with herbicide labeling, nor does it preempt those state laws concerned with herbicide labeling that do not impose any requirement in addition to or different from the FIFRA requirements”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“additional labeling standards not mandated by FIFRA,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.