Putnam v. Bayer A.G.

Eleventh Circuit

Putnam v. Bayer A.G.

467 F. App'x 832

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedApril 24, 2012

DocketNo. 11-12999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 467 F. App'x 832 (Putnam v. Bayer A.G.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Putnam v. Bayer A.G., 467 F. App'x 832 (11th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After review and oral argument before this Court, we conclude that Plaintiff-Appellant Johnny Ward Putnam has shown no reversible error in the district court’s order, dated 27 May 2011, granting summary judgment in favor of DefendantAppellee Bayer Corporation on all of Putnam’s claims, based on Mississippi’s statutes of limitation.

The district court did not err in finding that, as a matter of law, Putnam failed to show that the relevant Mississippi limitation periods were tolled based on theories of fraudulent concealment and/or discovery of latent injury.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

After review and oral argument before this Court, we conclude that Plaintiff-Appellant Johnny Ward Putnam has shown no reversible error in the district court’s order, dated 27 May 2011, granting summary judgment in favor of DefendantAppellee Bayer Corporation on all of Putnam’s claims, based on Mississippi’s statutes of limitation.

The district court did not err in finding that, as a matter of law, Putnam failed to show that the relevant Mississippi limitation periods were tolled based on theories of fraudulent concealment and/or discovery of latent injury.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

467 F. App'x 832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putnam-v-bayer-ag-ca11-2012.