CLE Course Materials: Recent Appellate Decisions, Summer 2017
These are the course materials for the CLE to be held in Hastings, Nebraska, on August 22, 2017. The links below take you to a summary of each case, which also includes a link to the court's opinion. For more information on this program, please visit this page.
Advertisement:
During this program, we will review the following cases. (Additional material from recently decided cases will be added prior to the program.)
- Solar Eclipse Law
- Nebraska Supreme Court
- Iowa Supreme Court
-
State of Iowa v. Maurce D. Angel and Kemia B. McDowell. IA criminal law
. Apr. 21, 2017.
-
Bradley A. Chicoine, et al., v. Wellmark, Inc., et al.. IA insurance, civil procedure
. Apr. 21, 2017.
-
In the matter of the estate of Joseph C. Gantner, III. IA probate
. Apr. 21, 2017.
-
Lyle H. Abbas, et al., v. Iowa Insurance Division. IA Insurance
. Apr. 21, 2017.
-
State of Iowa v. James Alon Shorter. IA criminal law
. Apr. 17, 2017.
- Iowa Court of Appeals
- Minnesota Supreme Court
-
In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against
Randall D. B. Tigue, Aug. 16, 2017. (1. The referee’s findings that respondent Randall D. B. Tigue misappropriated client funds are not clearly erroneous. 2. Based on the circumstances of this case, the appropriate discipline for an attorney who misappropriated client funds is an indefinite suspension with the right to petition for reinstatement after 2 years and a permanent prohibition on being an authorized signer on a client trust account.)
-
In re the Marriage of: Francis Stephen Gill vs. Gretchen Zwakman Gill. Aug. 16, 2017 (When the marital interest in a business entity is sold and includes, as part of the sale price, a provision for "earn-out" payments based on future company performance, the earnout payments are marital property, notwithstanding purchaser’s employment of one of the spouses under a separate employment agreement during the “earn-out” )
- Minnesota Court of Appeals
-
Loren J. Zutz, et al., vs. John Nelson, et al.. Aug 14, 2017. (Appellants argue that the district court erred by rejecting their argument that the so-called anti-SLAPP statute is unconstitutional as applied to their claims against respondents. We conclude that appellants did not waive their constitutional challenge by not asserting it at an earlier stage of the case. We also conclude that the anti-SLAPP statute is unconstitutional as applied to appellants’ claims against respondents. Therefore, we reverse.)
- Minnesota District Court, Ramsey County