Albrecht v. General Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that section 614.8(2)’s extension provision for minors does not apply to the statute of repose in section 614.1(2A)(a) based on the differences between statutes of limitations and statutes of repose
• stating that statute of repose reflects legislative conclusion that point in time arrives beyond which potential defendant should be immune from liability for past conduct
• holding that the fifteen-year statute of repose in section 614.1(2A) precluded products liability claims against General Motors premised on a defective seat belt that contributed to a minor’s injuries in a car accident brought more than fifteen years after the car was purchased
• stating the fifteen-year period in section 614.1(2A) “runs from the date the product was first purchased or installed for use”
• discussing the dual effect of applying both a statute-of-limitations and a statute-of- repose
• “We seek to interpret statutes consistently with their language and purpose, and avoid interpretations that are unreasonable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).