Legal Opinion

Tomka v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided February 22, 1995No. 93-869PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TERNUS, Justice.

Plaintiff, Victor Tomka, sued defendant, Hoechst Celanese Corporation d/b/a Hoechst-Roussel Agri-Vet Co., a manufacturer of synthetic growth hormones. Tomka sought to recover damages he sustained when cattle he was custom feeding were implanted with a hormone manufactured by Hoechst.

The trial court granted Hoechst’s motion for directed verdict and the court of appeals affirmed. Both the trial court and the court of appeals held that Tomka could not recover economic losses in the absence of any damage to his property. Because Tomka did not own the cattle that were implanted,…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1982
  2. G&M Farms v. Funk Irrigation Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Northridge Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Szajna v. General Motors Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1986
  5. Smith v. Smithway Motor Xpress, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1990

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2002
  2. All-Tech Telecom, Inc. v. Amway CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1999
  3. Tralon Corp. v. Cedarapids, Inc.District Court, N.D. Iowa · 1997
  4. Van Sickle Construction Co. v. Wachovia Commercial Mortgage, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2010
  5. Barnhill v. Iowa District Court for Polk CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 2009

46 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