Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc., 346 N.W.2d 616.

78 citing documents.

Law v. Essick Manufacturing Co. 396 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Law v. Essick Manufacturing Co. 396 N.W.2d 883 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Bilotta v. Kelley Company, Inc.
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 395 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1986
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 395 N.W.2d 922 Minn. 1986
See, Holm v. Sponco Mfg., Inc., Frey v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Clark v. Rental Equipment Co., 300 Minn. 420, 426
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 391 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Kallio v. Ford Motor Co. 391 N.W.2d 860 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
a plaintiff must show the existence of a feasible, practicable alternative design as one element of a prima facie case for design defect.
Balder v. Haley 390 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Balder v. Haley 390 N.W.2d 855 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Tews v. Husqvarna, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Tews v. Husqvarna, Inc. 390 N.W.2d 363 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
See Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc., -23 (Minn.1984) (focus in design defect cases is on manufacturer’s conduct, rather than the product’s condition; assuming proper instruction to ensure the broadest theory of recovery, a trial court may properly submit a design-defect or failure-to-warn case to a jury on a single theory of products liability).
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Germann v. F.L. Smithe MacHine Co. 381 N.W.2d 503 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(citing Westerberg, 276 Minn. at 9-11 , d at 316-18 ).
Crothers Ex Rel. Crothers v. Cohen 384 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Crothers Ex Rel. Crothers v. Cohen 384 N.W.2d 562 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
“[A]n instruction on express warranty should be given only if the trial court finds that the evidence supports the giving of such an instruction * * *.” Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc.
Willmar Poultry Co. v. Carus Chemical Co. 378 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Willmar Poultry Co. v. Carus Chemical Co. 378 N.W.2d 830 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
McCormick v. Custom Pools, Inc. 376 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
McCormick v. Custom Pools, Inc. 376 N.W.2d 471 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Peppin v. W.H. Brady Co. 372 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Peppin v. W.H. Brady Co. 372 N.W.2d 369 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc., Westerberg v. School Dist.
Smits v. E-Z Por Corp. 365 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
Smits v. E-Z Por Corp. 365 N.W.2d 352 Minn. Ct. App. 1985
See Steenson, The Anatomy of Products Liability in Minnesota: The Theories of Recovery, 6 William Mitchell Law Review 1, 57 (1980); see also Bilotta v. Kelley Co., Inc., note 3 (Minn.1984).
Bilotta ex rel. Cutting v. Kelley Co. 358 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Bilotta ex rel. Cutting v. Kelley Co. 358 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
See Bilotta v. Kelley Company, Inc.
Dahlbeck v. DICO Co., Inc. 355 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Dahlbeck v. DICO Co., Inc. 355 N.W.2d 157 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
the supreme court limited the application of this rule to situations where an “optional safety device would impair the equipment’s utility in the uses for which the device is unnecessary.” Id.
Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Division of Dynamics Corp. of America 349 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Peterson v. Little-Giant Glencoe Portable Elevator Division of Dynamics Corp. of America 349 N.W.2d 280 Minn. Ct. App. 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by