Love v. Thomas
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
858 F.2d 1347 (1988)
- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), a pesticide called dinoseb was registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant). After the EPA developed doubts about the safety of dinoseb, it began proceedings to cancel dinoseb’s FIFRA registration. Because cancelation proceedings took one or two years to complete, the EPA issued an order suspending the use of dinoseb nationwide pending the completion of cancelation proceedings. The EPA found that a third of the nation’s green-pea acreage was treated with dinoseb, such that the suspension order would have only a minor effect nationally. However, the EPA did not consider the particular circumstances of farmers in the Pacific Northwest. Green-pea farmers in this region had to ensure that toxic nightshade berries were kept out of the pea harvest, and dinoseb was the only pesticide effective against nightshade. Without dinoseb, the farmers would be unable to sell green-pea crops, resulting in serious harm to the regional economy. A group of farmers from the Pacific Northwest (the farmers) (plaintiffs) brought suit, contending that the EPA’s suspension order was improper under FIFRA. The district court ruled in favor of the farmers. The EPA appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kozinski, 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.
