Sandra BICE, Appellant, v. LESLIE’S POOLMART, INC., a Corporation, Appellee

39 F.3d 887, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 30929, 1994 WL 605914
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedNovember 7, 1994
Docket94-1186
StatusPublished
Cited by44 cases

This text of 39 F.3d 887 (Sandra BICE, Appellant, v. LESLIE’S POOLMART, INC., a Corporation, Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sandra BICE, Appellant, v. LESLIE’S POOLMART, INC., a Corporation, Appellee, 39 F.3d 887, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 30929, 1994 WL 605914 (8th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge.

Sandra Bice brought an action against Leslie’s Poolmart, Inc., alleging that the label on the swimming pool supplies it sold her failed to adequately warn her of their hazardous nature. The district court dismissed the action on the ground that Bice’s state common law claim is preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodentieide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 136-136y. We affirm.

Power Powder is a chemical product manufactured and distributed by Leslie’s Poolmart which is used for swimming pool maintenance. There is no dispute that Power Powder is a pesticide within the meaning of FIFRA and that its label was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in accordance with FIFRA’s statutory scheme. See 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(B); 40 C.F.R. § 152.112(f). This court recently stated in National Bank of Commerce v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 38 F.3d 988, 994 n. 4 (8th Cir.1994), that in the context of FIFRA, under which the EPA is required to approve pesticide labels, “actual agency approval eliminates any possible claims under state tort law for failure to comply with federal [labeling] requirements.” We therefore hold that Bice’s claim for inadequate labeling or failure to warn is preempted by FIFRA.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wuebker v. Wilbur-Ellis Co.
338 F. Supp. 2d 974 (S.D. Iowa, 2004)
Akee v. Dow Chemical Co.
272 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (D. Hawaii, 2003)
Williams v. Dow Chemical Co.
255 F. Supp. 2d 219 (S.D. New York, 2003)
Dahlman Farms, Inc. v. FMC Corp.
240 F. Supp. 2d 1012 (D. Minnesota, 2002)
Eyl v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
650 N.W.2d 744 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2002)
Kim Netland v. Hess & Clark, Inc.
284 F.3d 895 (Eighth Circuit, 2002)
Kim Netland v. Hess & Clark
Eighth Circuit, 2002
Hamlet v. Oliver Exterminating, Inc.
44 V.I. 99 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 2001)
Goeb v. Tharaldson
615 N.W.2d 800 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 2000)
Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Serv., Inc.
993 P.2d 366 (California Supreme Court, 2000)
Dow Chemical Co. v. Ebling
723 N.E.2d 881 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2000)
Nathan Kimmel, Inc. v. DowElanco
64 F. Supp. 2d 939 (C.D. California, 1999)
Brown v. Chas. H. Lilly Co.
985 P.2d 846 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1999)
National Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co.
165 F.3d 602 (Eighth Circuit, 1999)
Ackerman v. American Cyanamid Co.
586 N.W.2d 208 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1998)
Mann v. H.W. Andersen Products, Inc.
246 A.D.2d 68 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Products
948 P.2d 1055 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1997)
Romah v. Hygienic Sanitation Co.
705 A.2d 841 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 F.3d 887, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 30929, 1994 WL 605914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandra-bice-appellant-v-leslies-poolmart-inc-a-corporation-appellee-ca8-1994.