Legal Opinion
Grossman v. Aerial Farm Service, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
Decided March 25, 1986No. C8-85-1934PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NIERENGARTEN, Judge.
This appeal is from a partial summary judgment in favor of respondents Aerial Farm Service, Inc., Roger Krause and Doug Clark on grounds that the action was barred by Minn.Stat. § 541.07(8) (1984), which imposes a two-year statute of limitations on actions brought to recover damages for improper application of a pesticide. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Willard Grossman owns farmland which he rents to the Suess Brothers for the planting of crops. The Suess Brothers contracted with respondents Aerial Farm Service, Inc., for the sale and aerial application of a herbicide…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- 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
- Knopp v. GuttermanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
- Smith v. BarrySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sears Termite & Pest Control v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 2003
- Grossman v. Aerial Farm Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 1987
- Programmed Land, Inc. v. O'CONNORCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1999
- Sears Termite & Pest Control v. RobinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 2003