that defendants were negligent in providing warnings on their product: in that the warnings should have warned of the product’s propensity to cause asthnia and should have contained more detailed instructions as to proper use of the product. However, it is undisputed that defendants’ labels and warnings complied with FIFRA labeling requirements. Consequently, the court concludes that pursuant to Arkansas-Platte II plaintiffs state law causes of action for failure to. warn, as stated in her petition, are preempted by FIFRA. The court’s conclusion stands regardless of whether plaintiffs causes of action arise from Kansas common law or Kansas statutes. Arkansas-Platte II, 981 F.2d at 1179 (citing Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 2620, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992)) (<HOLDING>). Because plaintiffs failure to warn causes of
holding that illegal state regulation can be accomplished either by an award of damages or by legislative enactment holding that an individual can be a final policymaker either by operation of state and local positive law or by custom or usage having the force of law holding that by statute an assault is established by proving a menacing threat which may or may not be accomplished by a specific intent to injure holding that the contact clause reaches every form in which the legislative power of a state is exerted whether it be a constitution a constitutional amendment an enactment of the legislature a bylaw or ordinance of a municipal corporation or a regulation or order of some other instrumentality of the state exercising delegated legislative authority holding that legislative consent to suit must be by clear and unambiguous language in either a statute or by other express legislative permission