Legal Opinion
Holstad v. Southwestern Porcelain, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided March 22, 1988No. C0-87-2032PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
EDWARD D. MULALLY, Acting Judge.
Carl Holstad appeals the summary judgment determining that his breach of warranty claims are barred by the statute of limitations and that his tort claims are barred by the Superwood doctrine. He argues the trial court applied the wrong statute of limitations on his warranty claims. As to the tort claims, he argues the Superwood doctrine does not bar his action because he alleges damage to property not included in the sale contract.
FACTS
Appellant runs a dairy farm in Kandiyohi County, Minnesota. In March 1979 he entered into a contract to purchase a…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Seely v. White Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Wild v. RarigSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
- Frances M. Bonebrake, Administratrix De Bonis Non of the Estate of Woodrow B. Simek, Deceased v. Donald Cox and Claude Cox, D/B/A Tamarack BowlCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1974
- Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Superwood Corp. v. Siempelkamp Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Hydra-Mac, Inc. v. Onan Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Hapka v. Paquin FarmsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
- Kline Iron & Steel Co. v. Gray Communications Consultants, Inc.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1989
- Force v. ITT Hartford Life and Annuity Ins. Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1998
- Neibarger v. Universal Cooperatives, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1989
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.