Latest 3 Cases: Terry v. Dorothy (Contracts), State v. Johnson (Criminal Law), State v. Uranga (Criminal Law)

The Fate of American Democracy May Depend on the Willingness of Democratic Governors to Fight Fiercely after the November 3 Election

AUSTIN SARAT, DANIEL B. EDELMAN

In anticipation of a contested election outcome in November, Amherst College Associate Provost Professor Austin Sarat and attorney Daniel B. Edelman call upon Democratic governors to forward a slate of electors that reflects the preference of the greatest number of voters in their states, regardless of what their legislatures might do. Sarat and Edelman argue that the fate of American democracy may depend on these governors.

Read More

Terry v. Dorothy

Docket: 18-1545

Opinion Date: October 23, 2020

Judge: Brent R. Appel

Areas of Law: Contracts, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court dismissing an employee's gross negligence claim against a coemployee, holding that settlement documents submitted to and approved by the workers' compensation commissioner extinguished the employee's gross negligence claim. Plaintiff, an employee of Lutheran Services in Iowa (LSI) was attacked by one of LSI's clients, causing injuries. Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim against LSI and its workers' compensation carrier. The parties settled, and the two settlement documents were approved by the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner. Plaintiff subsequently filed a petition in district court seeking to recover damages from Defendant, Plaintiff's supervisor when he worked at LSI, on a theory of gross negligence. Defendant moved to dismiss the action, relying on release language in the settlement documents. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendant on both contract and statutory grounds. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that a settlement with the commissioner did not release a common law claim of gross negligence against a coemployee. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' judgment and affirmed the district court's summary judgment, holding that the district court properly ruled that, as a matter of contract, the language in the terms of settlement extinguished Plaintiff's gross negligence claim.

State v. Johnson

Docket: 19-0892

Opinion Date: October 23, 2020

Judge: McDermott

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of homicide by intoxicated operation of a vehicle, holding that the district court did not err by denying his requested instruction for homicide by reckless driving as a lesser included offense and by excluding certain evidence. Defendant drove his pickup through a stop sign and broadsided a minivan. One of the passengers in the minivan, a six-month-old infant who wasn't secured in a child restraint system, died from injuries suffered in the crash. Defendant was convicted of homicide by intoxicated operation, and the trial court denied his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to give to the jury Defendant's requested homicide by reckless driving instruction because it was not a lesser included offense; and (2) the district court did not err in preventing Defendant from offering evidence that the infant wasn't secured in a child restraint seat.

State v. Uranga

Docket: 18-1777

Opinion Date: October 23, 2020

Judge: McDonald

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for new trial based on a claim of newly discovered evidence, holding that the district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying Defendant's motion for new trial. In 2014, Defendant registered as a sex offender in Iowa. In 2016, Defendant failed to appear at the sheriff's office to verify his registration information. Defendant was subsequently convicted of failure to comply with the sex offender registry. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The district court denied the motion, finding that the newly discovered evidence was not material and would not have changed the jury's verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial.