Last mentioned: Jun 27, 2026
Across the most recent 1 story covering Mr. Durnell — 100% positive sentiment, averaging 8/10 impact.
This entity profile aggregates every story where the entity meets our minimum relevance threshold before it is linked here — a story naming this entity only in passing, as competitive context for an unrelated subject, does not qualify. That threshold exists because earlier testing surfaced entity pages cluttered with tangential mentions: a story about two unrelated companies merging could otherwise populate a third company's page simply because it was named once for comparison, with no real event of its own. The timeline below reflects genuine milestones and developments specific to this entity, cross-referenced against the same source-verification standard applied to every story on this site. Sentiment measures the directional read of each development for this entity specifically, not the overall tone of the reporting, and impact weights how consequential a development is rather than how widely it was syndicated across outlets.
Figures are computed live from our source-verified story record — see our methodology for how impact and sentiment are derived.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules 7-2 in Monsanto v. Durnell
The Court holds that FIFRA expressly preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims requiring warnings beyond EPA-approved labeling, reversing a $1M+ jury verdict.
IARC Reiterates Finding; EPA Maintains Position
IARC reaffirms its classification. EPA re-examines the issue but adheres to its stance that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer.
IARC Classifies Glyphosate as Probably Carcinogenic
The International Agency for Research on Cancer states that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans, prompting litigation.
The Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in Monsanto v. Durnell holds that FIFRA preempts state failure-to-warn claims requiring cancer warnings beyond EPA-approved labels. The ruling overturns a $1M+ verdict and provides a powerful preemption defense for pesticide manufacturers facing over 100,000 personal injury lawsuits.
Source: National Law Review · National Law Review
This page surfaces every story mentioning Mr. Durnell across our legal coverage. We track each entity's appearance over time so readers can trace how the narrative evolves — which developments are isolated incidents, which build into longer arcs, and which reframe how operators in the space think about the entity. Story selection uses the same multi-source verification gate applied across the rest of our coverage.
Read our editorial methodology for how we identify, deduplicate, and score entity references. Our glossary defines the technical terms used across stories on this page, and our trends index contextualizes individual developments against the longer-running legal beat. Cross-entity comparisons live on our compare view.
Entities only appear on this page once the classifier scores them at a minimum 35 percent relevance to the story, filtering out passing mentions. According to that methodology, reviewed July 2026, this follows multi-source corroboration standards recommended by journalism research bodies such as the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
See something wrong on this page — a misattributed entity, a wrong stat, a broken source link? Report a data issue.
| What you see | What it tells you |
|---|---|
| Story count | Number of distinct stories where Mr. Durnell was a primary or referenced actor. |
| Recency clustering | Whether mentions are concentrated in a recent window (a news cycle) or distributed (a sustained arc). |
| Sentiment distribution | Aggregate sentiment of the stories mentioning this entity, weighted by impact score. |
| Cross-niche links | When the same entity surfaces in our sibling networks, we link to those views to enrich context. |