Legal Opinion

Bryson v. Pillsbury Co.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided February 3, 1998No. C4-97-1564PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KALITOWSKI, Judge.

Appellant Nora Bryson challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of respondents Pillsbury Company, et al., arguing the district court erred because: (1) Bryson submitted evidence that raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she suffered a present injury; and (2) Bry-son presented sufficient evidence to establish her claim for damages based on her alleged increased risk of developing cancer.

FACTS

Appellant Nora Bryson boarded her horse at the farm of an individual who, like Bryson, was an employee of respondent Finsbury’s…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Cooper v. FrenchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  2. Fabio v. BellomoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1993
  3. Werlein v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1990
  4. Carpenter v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
  5. Dunshee v. DouglasSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Alexander v. ScheidIndiana Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Alsides v. Brown Institute, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
  3. Forbes v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2006
  4. G.A.W. v. D.M.W.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
  5. In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 2010

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API