Hildebrandt v. Allied Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• describing the two elements set forth above as satisfying the discovery rule under Minnesota law
• concluding it could not be said as a matter of law that plaintiff had knowledge of the cause of his medical problems when he was told by the company doctor that there was no correlation between his symptoms and his exposure to chemicals at work
• “There is a substantial difference between knowledge of injury and the cause of that injury and mere suspicion.”
• “There is a substantial difference between knowledge of injury and the cause of that injury and mere suspicion.”
• “[I]t appears that, for products liabili ty claims in Minnesota, the discovery rule applies.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).