Hunton Retail Law Resource

On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court held in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) preempts state law failure-to-warn claims that would require a manufacturer to add or modify warnings EPA-approved warnings on pesticide labels.  This decision is the culmination of decades of product liability litigation alleging that the popular Roundup herbicide was carcinogenic and lacked sufficient warning labels under state tort laws. While this decision will likely close the book on the Roundup litigation, it also has important implications for any manufacturers that produce products subject to federal regulation under FIFRA.  

In Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton (Jan. 20, 2026), the Supreme Court held that motions to vacate void judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) are subject to Rule 60(c)(1)’s requirement that they be filed within a “reasonable time.” This rejects the prior view in many circuits that void judgments could be challenged at any time. For corporate defendants, the decision makes prompt action critical: once a company learns of a default judgment it believes is void due to defective service or lack of personal jurisdiction, delay can forfeit Rule 60(b)(4) relief.

Development impact fees, a common tool used by local governments to fund public infrastructure and services, play a crucial role in the process of urban and suburban growth. These fees are levied on developers in conjunction with new construction or revitalization projects to offset the costs associated with increased demand for roads, schools, utilities and other amenities necessitated by development. In other words, they are used to soften the “impact” that the new development is going to bring to the infrastructure already in place.