Legal Opinion

Murray v. Luzenac Corp.

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided April 22, 2003No. 02-140PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶ 1. Defendant Luzenac Corporation appeals the decision of the Commissioner of Labor and Industry granting plaintiffs summary judgment motion. Defendant claims that the Commissioner erred by: (1) holding that plaintiffs claim was not time-barred pursuant to the Occupational Disease Act (ODA), 21 V.S.A. § 1006(a) (1987) (repealed by 1999, No. 41, § 8(a)(1)); (2) applying the “discovery rule” from 21 V.S.A. § 660(b); and (3) relying upon the Commissioner’s earlier decision in Sheltra v. Vermont Asbestos Group. Although the Commissioner’s analysis and reliance on Shettra was erroneous, see…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Davis & McMillan v. Industrial Accident CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1926
  2. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. SurdamSupreme Court of Vermont · 1991
  3. Lester v. State Workmen's Compensation CommissionerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1978
  4. Dobson v. Quinn Freight Lines, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1980
  5. Montgomery v. Brinver Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1983

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. In Re Chatham Woods Holdings, LLCSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
  2. Sanz v. Douglas Collins ConstructionSupreme Court of Vermont · 2006
  3. Archbishop of Washington v. DoeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2025
  4. Bd. of Education Of Harford Cnty. v. DoeCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2025
  5. Cyr v. McDERMOTT'S, INC.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2010

6 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