Bates
et al. v. Dow AgroSciences LLC
Note: Legal briefs, opinions, and
oral arguments are highlighted in yellow. |
| Date
Published |
Title |
Published
by |
| April 28,
2005 |
Supreme
Court Says Farmers May Sue in State Courts |
By Linda
Greenhouse, New York Times |
| April 28,
2005 |
Supreme
Court Affirms Right to Sue For Pesticide Harm |
Press
Release - Beyond Pesticides
Beyond
Pesticides joined an amicus brief in the case in favor of
the farmers with
Earthjustice, Defenders of Wildlife, Farmworker Justice Fund,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility,
Public Citizen, Sierra Club, and Trial Lawyers for Public
Justice. |
| April 27,
2005 |
Court:
Farmers can sue pesticide makers |
By Hope
Yen
Associated Press |
| April 27,
2005 |
Supreme
Court Allows Citizens to Seek Legal Redress for Harm Caused
By Pesticides. Manufacturers' attempt to lock courthouse
doors fails. |
Press
Release - Earthjustice |
| April 27,
2005 |
SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Case No. 03—388
•
Concurrence (Breyer)
• Opinion (Stevens)
• (Opinion
of Thomas) |
US
Supreme Court rules in favor of the farmers.
Opinion Issued: 7-2 for Bates.
The US
Supreme Court issued an opinion that upheld citizens' rights
to sue for damages caused by pesticides, and called into question
aspects of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA). The decision requires a lower court that had
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims to rehear their arguments. |
| April 2005 |
On
the Docket: Bates, Dennis, et al. v. Dow Agrosciences LLC
Overview of case and list of lawyers representing
Petitioners and Dow. |
By Eric
P. Martin, Medill News Service |
| Jan 10,
2005 |
Transcript
of oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United
States |
Parties
in both cases have enlisted top-tier lawyers to do battle.
In
the pesticide case Bates v. Dow Agrosciences, set for argument
today, heavy hitters David Frederick of Washington, D.C.'s
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, will square
off against former Solicitor General Seth Waxman of Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
Frederick
represents Texas peanut farmers harmed by a pesticide made
by Waxman's client, Dow. Waxman will argue that a federal
law that regulates pesticides pre-empts state tort actions,
but Frederick calls that argument "the
latest effort by manufacturers to evade liability for their
defective products through a sweeping pre-emption argument."
Ref: Supreme
Court Set to Enter Tort Battleground. By Tony Mauro. Legal
Times. January 10, 2005. |
| December
29, 2004
|
Brief
for petitioners (Bates et al). Submitted to US Supreme
Court.
David
C. Frederick
Counsel of Record |
| Nov 24,
2004 |
The
Washington Legal Foundation
today asked the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that if an herbicide
label complies with the federal regulatory system governing
the labeling of pesticides and herbicides, the
label cannot be the basis of a state law tort action ... |
Washington
Legal Foundation
in
support of Dow AgroSciences
News Release
Washington Legal Foundation
Advocate for freedom and justice®
2009 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington DC |
| November
24, 2004 |
Brief
of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States as Amicus
Curiae in Support of Respondent |
US
Chamber of Commerce
in support of Dow AgroSciences
The National
Chamber Litigation Center (NCLC) amicus brief urges the high
court to affirm a court of appeals decision prohibiting individuals
from bringing state tort actions based on pesticide labeling.
NCLC argues that allowing state-law tort claims in areas of
comprehensive federal regulation would "create a crazy
quilt of preemption," where contrary labeling requirements
imposed by positive law, like statutes and regulations, would
be preempted, but common law obligations imposed by judges
and juries in state court suits for damages would not. |
| 2004 |
The
law firm Mayer, Brown Rowe & Maw LLP fild an amicus brief
during the 2004 U.S. Supreme Court Term for the "Product
Liability Advisory Counsel (PLAC) in support of respondent Dow's
position that FIFRA broadly preempts such claims." |
Product
Liability Advisory Counsel
in
support of Dow AgroSciences
Mayer,
Brown Rowe & Maw LLP
on behalf of the Product Liability Advisory Counsel |
| September
13, 2004 |
Amicus
Curiae
brief of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America in
support of the Petitioners. |
The
Association of Trial Lawyers of America
argues in support of the farmers |
| May 2004 |
Brief
for the United States as Amicus Curiae |
Bush
Administration argues in support of Dow AgroSciences.
In this brief submitted to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor
General Theodore Olson argues that FIFRA pre-empts tort liability
claims against pesticide registrants, sellers and distributors. |
| June 11,
2003 |
U.S.
Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit - No. 02-10908 |
Ruled
in favor of Dow AgroSciences
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court’s
decision that FIFRA preempted the state law claims of Texas
peanut farmers whose crops had suffered due to application of
a federally registered herbicide. |
| |
|
|
