Co., 716 F.2d 504, 510-12 (8th Cir.1983). Finally, we see no merit in Branson’s contention that the statute of repose violates an open courts provision allegedly contained within Article I, Section 6 of the Iowa Constitution. See Iowa Const, art. I., § 6 (“All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”). We have found no cases, and Branson points us to none, which have interpreted this section of the Iowa Constitution to provide a right to open courts. Even assuming that such a right exists in Iowa, we are not convinced that the statute of repose would violate it. See Van Den Hul, 716 F.2d at 512 (<HOLDING>). The judgment of the District Court is
holding 10year statute of repose violates state constitutions guarantee of open courts in case involving defective machine holding that provision has the characteristics of a statute of repose holding that statute of repose was not subject to toiling provision applicable to statute of limitations because among other reasons it would ignore fundamental distinctions between ordinary statutes of limitations and statutes of repose holding that provision is a statute of repose because by its own terms the provision does not just procedurally bar an untimely claim it substantively extinguishes the cause of action holding that south dakotas products liability statute of repose does not violate south dakota constitutional provision providing that all courts shall be open