Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jo Levitt v. Merck & Company

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided February 4, 2019No. 17-2630Published

1DissentColloton, Circuit Judge

I conclude that the district court correctly applied Missouri law in ruling that Jo Levitt's claim against Merck & Company was barred by the statute of limitations. I would therefore affirm the judgment.

Missouri applies an "inquiry notice" standard to begin the running of a statute of limitations. Powel v. Chaminade Coll. Preparatory, Inc. , 197 S.W.3d 576 , 583 (Mo. 2006). There is no requirement that the plaintiff have actual knowledge of her injury and its cause. Wheeler v. Eftink , 507 S.W.3d 598 , 604 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). A cause of action accrues when the "evidence was such to place a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Nat Levy v. Donald J. Ohl, William J. Knapp, L. David Green, and Merilyn HamlettCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2007
  2. Miller v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012
  3. The Washington Post v. Honorable Deborah RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1991
  4. Powel v. Chaminade College Preparatory, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 2006
  5. Ranney v. Parawax Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1998

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

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

Powered by the Exa API