Legal Opinion
Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided January 22, 1988No. C5-87-1264, C6-87-1340PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COYNE, Justice.
This products liability action arises out of an eye injury sustained by a 12-year-old boy while playing with a velcro dart game manufactured by Airdart, Inc., a subsidiary of Dynatec International, Inc., distributed by Atwood Richards, Inc., and sold by C.O. M.B., Inc. The manufacturer appeals from an order denying a motion for partial summary judgment. The plaintiff filed a notice of review in the manufacturer’s appeal and also filed a separate appeal from an order denying reinstatement of two defendants previously dismissed from the action. The appeals were consolidated and,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in ActionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Hunt v. Nevada State BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1969
- Hardy v. MatthewsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- In Re Pyramid Co. of BurlingtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1982
- Max Daetwyler Corp. v. MeyerDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Gordon v. Microsoft Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2002
- Foley v. Honeywell, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Wagener v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1993
- O'Shaughnessy v. Smuckler Corp.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996
- National City Bank of Minneapolis v. LundgrenCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1989
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.