Legal Opinion

Moe v. Springfield Milling Corp.

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided October 21, 1986No. C0-86-660PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

SEDGWICK, Judge.

Norman and Genevieve Moe appeal from a summary judgment dismissing their personal injury claims against Springfield Milling Corporation for dioxin poisoning traceable to a cattle feed supplement. The trial court decided the absence of an established dioxin level in humans and appellant’s failure to show with reasonable medical certainty a dioxin-related injury to Moe removed all questions of material fact. We believe a causal connection establishing a question of material fact has been demonstrated regardless of the nature of dioxin’s background level in the human…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Farr v. Armstrong Rubber CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
  2. Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  3. Murphy v. Country House, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
  4. Peterson v. Bendix Home Systems, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
  5. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co. v. Tapemark Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1978

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. DLH, Inc. v. RussSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
  2. Bondy v. AllenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2001
  3. Jonathan v. KvaalCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
  4. Zimprich v. Stratford Homes, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1990
  5. Jonathan v. KvaalCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API