Law in the Time of Corona

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, LAWRENCE M. FRIEDMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Stanford law professor Lawrence M. Friedman discuss the implications of COVID-19 on the execution of wills and marriage. Grossman and Friedman argue that the COVID-19 crisis demonstrates how quickly and universally Americans rush into court, demanding from judges legal solutions to ethical, political, and social issues.

Read More

Richards v. Rabo ArgiFinance, LLC

Docket: 19-6039

Opinion Date: May 4, 2020

Judge: Schermer

Areas of Law: Bankruptcy

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court's determination that the interested parties were equitably estopped from asserting ownership of machinery and equipment in debtor's bankruptcy case. In this case, the interested parties allowed the misrepresentations concerning debtor's assets to continue throughout the bankruptcy case and now seek to protect their alleged pecuniary interests. The court found that the interested parties' arguments lacked merit and were not properly before the district court. The court also affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of the interested parties' request for the bankruptcy court to alter or amend its ruling or for a new trial.

Rossley v. Drake University

Docket: 19-1392

Opinion Date: May 4, 2020

Judge: Grasz

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law

After plaintiff was removed from the Board of Trustees of Drake University, he filed suit alleging Title IX retaliation, disability retaliation, and breach of contract. Plaintiff's removal stemmed from conflicts of interests following the University's findings that plaintiff's son was responsible for alleged sexual misconduct and expelled from the University. The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiff's removal from the Board cannot support a Title IX retaliation claim against the University. In this case, the Board was acting in a manner separate and distinct from the University itself and thus plaintiff cannot hold the University liable under Title IX for the separate decision of the Board regarding its own internal affairs. The court also held that plaintiff's claim that the University retaliated against him by prohibiting him from serving as his son's advocate during the campus hearings failed, where, at no time did the son request that his father serve as his personal representative under the Code of Conduct and that such request was denied. Furthermore, without a nexus, plaintiff's claim of Title IX retaliation by the University failed. The court held that none of the actions plaintiff alleges the University took against him in retaliation were part of an education program or activity, and therefore he lacks standing to bring suit under 20 U.S.C. 1681(a). The court declined to expand Title IX's reach. The court held that plaintiff's disability retaliation claim failed because the Board voted to remove plaintiff due to his pervasive conflict of interest with the University and only after plaintiff refused to take a leave of absence from the Board. Finally, the court held that plaintiff's contract claim failed because plaintiff served on the Board as an unpaid, uncompensated volunteer.