Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
874 F.2d 277 (1989)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) issued a notice of intent to cancel the registrations of products containing diazinon for use on golf courses and sod farms because of the potential harm it may cause to birds. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) authorized the cancellation of the registration for products that generally cause adverse effects on the environment. Ciba-Geigy Corporation (plaintiff), a manufacturer of diazinon, argued before the EPA’s chief administrative-law judge (ALJ) that FIFRA required the EPA to conclude that diazinon generally causes unreasonable adverse effects to birds before it can cancel the registration for diazinon. The ALJ determined that diazinon’s registration for use on golf courses should not be canceled. The administrator of the EPA rejected Ciba-Geigy’s argument and the ALJ’s conclusion. The EPA administrator stated that FIFRA authorized him to cancel the registration of a pesticide that causes an unreasonable risk regardless of the frequency with which that risk occurs and that the term “generally” does not mean “most of the time,” but is meant to be in regard to the entire picture. Ciba-Geigy petitioned to have the administrator’s order set aside.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rubin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
