MOBAY CHEMICAL CORP.
v.
COSTLE, ADMINISTRATRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Per Curiam.
Appellant contends that the use of one submitter’s data, filed prior to 1970, in the consideration of another person’s application for registration of pesticides under § 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as added by the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 979, and as amended, 89 Stat. 755, 7 U.
S. C. § 136a, effects a taking for private use and without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and that the Act is to that extent invalid. A three-judge court was convened under former 28 U.
S. C. § 2282 (1970 ed.) and proceeded to reject these contentions.
Appellant seeks to appeal directly to this Court. Having examined the Act and the papers before us, however, we are convinced that whatever may be true with respect to data submitted after January 1, 1970, the FIFRA, as amended, does not at all address the issues of the conditions under which pre-1970 data may be used in considering another application. It neither authorizes, forbids, nor requires the existing agency practice with respect to pre-1970 data. As a legal matter, then, appellant’s attack is on agency practice, not on the statute. The three-judge court was thus improperly convened, William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U. S. 171, 173-174 (1939), and this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a direct appeal from the judgment in such case. See 28 U.
S. C. § 1253; Norton v. Mathews, 427 U. S. 524, 528-530 (1976). The appeal is accordingly dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Blackmun,
dissenting.
I am of the view that the 1975 amendments to FIFRA specifically address the practices of the EPA and permit and ratify them. The constitutionality of the statute is therefore necessarily drawn into question in this lawsuit. See Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 88-91, and n. 3 (1968). I therefore conclude that ,the three-judge District Court was properly convened. On the merits, I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. Food & Drug Admin., 704 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1983)…1978) (using Restatement approach in a labeling case); Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Costle, 447 F.Supp. 811, 824-27, 834-35 (W.D.Mo.1978) (using Restatement definition in case under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 320, 99 S.Ct. 644, 58 L.Ed.2d 549 (1979) (per curiam), aff’d sub nom. Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Gorsuch, 682 F. 2d 419 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 343, 74 L.Ed.2d 384 (1982); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. FTC, 409 F.Supp. 297, 303-04 (D.D.C.) (applyi…
-
Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co., Inc. v. Costle, 632 F.2d 1014 (2d Cir. 1980)…considered a trade secret if the data met the requisites of that term as set forth in [*1017] section 757, comment b, of the Restatement of Torts.1 See, e. g., Mobay Chemical Corp. v. Costle, 447 F.Supp. 811, 824-27 (W.D.Mo. 1978), appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 320, 99 S.Ct. 644, 58 L.Ed.2d 549 (1979); Chevron Chemical Co. v. Costle, 443 F.Supp. 1024, 1031-32 (N.D.Cal.1978); Dow Chemical Co. v. Costle, No. 76-10087, (E.D.Mich., Nov. 16, 1977). As originally filed on June 30, 1976, the present lawsuit also cha…
-
Duncan v. The United States, 597 F.2d 1337 (Ct. Cl. 1979)…sult in the Robinson Ranchería water system * We know of no adequate reason why these prior determinations in a suit between the same litigants should fail to be binding on defendant and on us. Cf. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore,-U.S.-, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 549 (1979). Second, even if we were to canvass the issue anew, we would come to the same result. Although the Secretary has discretion as to the amount and kind of water and sanitation systems, this does not allow him to terminate before ensuring a wat…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1968)
- Norton v. Mathews, 427 U.S. 524 (U.S. 1976)
- William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 307 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1939)