RUCKELSHAUS, ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

v.

MONSANTO CO.

Citator

Cited By

• Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (U.S. 1984)
  …0(d) of FIFRA, as amended by the Federal Pesticide Act of 1978, to be unconstitutional, and permanently enjoined EPA from implementing or enforcing those sections. See Amended Judgment, App. to Juris. Statement 41a.7 We noted probable jurisdiction. 464 U. S. 890 (1983). f — H > — 4 I — I In deciding this case, we are faced with four questions: (1) Does Monsanto have a property interest protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Taking Clause in the health, safety, and environmental data it has submitted to EPA? (…
• Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1984)
  …reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence, the court concluded that petitioner had failed to present a double jeopardy claim [*320] which could be reviewed at that point.3 We granted certio-rari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, 464 U. S. 890 (1983), because of a conflict with the decision reached by the Third Circuit in United States v. McQuilkin, 673 F. 2d 681 (1982),4 and because of the implications of the decision below for the administration of criminal justice. Petitioner contends…
• South-Central Timber Dev., Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U.S. 82 (U.S. 1984)
  …e Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that held that Alaska’s requirement that timber taken from state lands be processed within the State prior to export was “implicitly authorized” by Congress and therefore does not violate the Commerce Clause. 464 U. S. 890 (1983). We hold that it was not authorized and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I In September 1980, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources published a notice that it would sell approximately 49 million board-feet of timber in the…