Bloomquist v. Wapello County

How courts have described this case

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

• noting “while epidemiological evidence is helpful, it should not be held to be an absolute requirement in establishing causation”
• noting “while epidemiological evidence is helpful, it should not be held to be an absolute requirement in establishing causation”
• finding claim barred when not specifically identified in claim form and stating “under Iowa law it is incumbent on the claimant to first file a claim before the proper administrative agency, even if, as a practical matter, it would not have changed the State’s approach to the case”
• finding claim barred when not specifically identified in claim form and stating “under Iowa law it is incumbent on the claimant to first file a claim before the proper administrative agency, even if, as a practical matter, it would not have changed the State’s approach to the case”
• finding claim barred when not specifically identified in claim form and stating “under Iowa law it is incumbent on the claimant to first file a claim before the proper administrative agency, even if, as a practical matter, it would not have changed the State’s approach to the case”
• award of damages for future nursing and related expenses to employees who suffered poisoning from toxic pesticide was question for the jury

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).