Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

White v. Cooney Et Ux

510 U.S. 813

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1993-10-04
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that FIFRA preempts state common law causes of action
  • holding that product safety law language that says states “shall not impose or continue in effect any requirements for labeling or packaging in addition to or different from [the federal requirements]” preempted common law claims as well as statutory law claims faffing within its ambit
  • stating that FIFRA’s preemptive language is “as inclusive” as that of the Cigarette Act and holding that there is “no difference between the operative effect of the two acts”
  • holding denial of motion to dismiss based upon qualified immunity is an appealable order

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed White v. Cooney Et Ux. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
69 opinions

510 U.S. 813

White
v.
Cooney et ux.

No. 92-1767.

Supreme Court of United States.

October 4, 1993.

1

Appeal from the Sup. Ct. Wyo.

2

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 845 P. 2d 353.