Legal Opinion
Wittmer v. Ruegemer
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided February 19, 1988No. C6-86-1599PublishedCited by 54 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
COYNE, Justice.
This appeal raises once again questions concerning the event which triggers the commencement of the two-year limitations period provided by Minn.Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1 (1984). The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, ruling that plaintiffs’ action to recover damages resulting from the negligent design and installation of a septic system was time-barred because it was instituted more than two years after they discovered some damage — namely, standing water over .the seepage area. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the claim was not barred…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Wild v. RarigSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
- Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Couillard v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Dalton v. Dow Chemical Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1968
- O'Neill v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- DLH, Inc. v. RussSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
- William A. Graham Co. v. HaugheyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- W.J.L. v. BuggeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1998
- Blackowiak v. KempSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1996
- Independent School District No. 197 v. W.R. Grace & Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1990
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.