DAKOTA GASIFICATION COMPANY, Appellant, v. PASCOE BUILDING SYSTEMS, a DIVISION OF AMCORD, INC.; Del Con, Inc., Appellees

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that “[t]his language demonstrates that the damage which occurred here was well within the contemplation of the parties” (emphasis added)
• reasoning that “[t]his language demonstrates that the damage which occurred here was well within the contemplation of the parties” (emphasis added)
• applying its foreseeability rale to preclude tort recovery “regardless whether the damage was to the ‘goods’ themselves or to ‘other property’ ” (emphasis added)
• applying its foreseeability rule to preclude tort recovery “regardless whether the damage was to the ‘goods’ themselves -16- or to ‘other property’” (emphasis added)
• assessing foreseeability and analogizing the case to a Sixth Circuit decision because in both cases, “the defective structural components caused great damage to surrounding property”
• assessing foreseeability and analogizing the case to a Sixth Circuit decision because in both cases, “the defective structural components caused great damage to surrounding property”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).