Legal Opinion
Miller v. Lankow
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided August 3, 2011No. A09-0244PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ANDERSON, Paul H„ Justice.
Appellant David Miller purchased a home owned by respondents Linda Lan-kow and Jim Betz, which home had been extensively remediated because of moisture intrusion damage. Respondents Don-nelly Brothers and Total Service Company and defendant Diversified Contractors, Inc., did the remediation work on the home. After moving into the home, Miller discovered additional moisture intrusion damage. More than 18 months after notifying the respondents and the defendant of the damage, Miller began to repair the home. Three months later, Miller commenced this action…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Fujitsu Limited v. Federal Express CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
- Eric Esher Schmid v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation Eric SchmidCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1994
- Vodusek v. Bayliner Marine Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1995
- Trevino v. OrtegaTexas Supreme Court · 1998
- Vernon Ervin Dillon, Jr. Louise Dillon v. Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1993
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Lea Ann Tatham v. Bridgestone Americas Holding, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2015
- Jeffrey Sherman v. Rinchem Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012
- Miner Dederick Construction, LLP v. Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corporation, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2013
- Fines v. Ressler Enterprises, Inc.North Dakota Supreme Court · 2012
- TC/American Monorail, Inc. v. Custom Conveyor Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2013
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.