Printer Friendly
The Free Library
14,506,803 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Supreme Court rules on pesticide suit.


The United States Supreme Court United States Supreme Court: see Supreme Court, United States.  has ruled that manufacturers of pesticides can be sued for damages if their products cause harm, rejecting the opinion of the Bush Administration and sending a Texas case back to the lower court. The ruling has obvious implications for the private club industry.

The 7-2 ruling said that farmers whose crops are damaged by pesticides can sue for damages. In its first ruling on the scope of the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act

regulations administered by the (US) Environmental Protection Agency which regulate dispensing and use of pesticides.
 (FIFRA FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1972 ), the justices said the federal requirement that chemical companies submit their products for approval by the EPA EPA eicosapentaenoic acid.

EPA
abbr.
eicosapentaenoic acid


EPA,
n.pr See acid, eicosapentaenoic.

EPA,
n.
 did not "give pesticide manufacturers virtual immunity" from being sued. The plaintiffs, however, still must prove the products to be harmful to people, plants, or animals. The justices said the Federal Act does not preclude challenges in state court, as long as those lawsuits do not seek to impose additional or different regulations from those in FIFRA.
COPYRIGHT 2005 Finan Publishing Company, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Industry News
Publication:Club Management
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jun 1, 2005
Words:154
Previous Article:Help is on the way.(Industry News)(Brief Article)
Next Article:Blurring the club/resort lines.(Industry News)(Brief Article)
Topics:



Related Articles
Malathion exposure suit goes to state high court. (California) (Brief Article)
How to fight FIFRA preemption. (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act)
Malathion makers have no duty to warn. (California)(Brief Article)
The Supreme Court's new rule on amicus briefs.
Online research strategies for the bookish lawyer: lawyers with more legal than technical know-how can still use the many computer tools available to...
State Supreme Court ruling hailed by speech advocates. (Up Front).(Brief Article)
High Court ruling on attorney fees expected to have limited effect.
Supreme Court preemption decision bugs pesticide makers.
Judge stiffens ruling on pesticide warning labels.(Environment)(Stores must inform consumers of the dangers some chemicals pose to fish, and the EPA...
Riverside pesticide limits will continue.(Environment)(The U.S. Supreme Court refuses to reconsider buffer zones on Western streams)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2009 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles