Cavanaugh v. Abbott Laboratories

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that where statutory language is unambiguous,, there is no need to review legislative history
• examining a statute of repose, finding no ambiguity in the statute and thus declining to read into the statutory language a limitation suggested by defendants
• overruling prior case law, “this Court has decided . . . that the term ‘accrue’ should be given a uniform meaning, regardless of when any particular cause of action actually arose”
• citing, Heisse v. State, 143 Vt. 87, 89, 460 A.2d 444, 445 (1983)
• citing, Heisse v. State, 143 Vt. 87, 89, 460 A.2d 444, 445 (1983)
• noting common-law discovery rule “coincides” with statutory definitions of the term “accrue”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).