Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nixon v. State

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided September 30, 2005No. 03-1850Published

1DissentTernus, Justice

I dissent. The majority believes the only consequential issue in this case is whether the statute of limitations for claims against the State, Iowa Code section 669.13, bars the plaintiffs’ claims. They have given little consideration to the State’s argument that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred long before suit was filed in 2003, and that events occurring after these claims were barred cannot serve to resurrect them. I am convinced this court’s long-standing rules of statutory interpretation and well-established legal principles governing the revival of barred claims compel the conclusion…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Gannon v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Chrischilles v. GriswoldSupreme Court of Iowa · 1967
  3. Graham v. WorthingtonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1966
  4. State v. KelloggSupreme Court of Iowa · 1996
  5. Harden v. StateSupreme Court of Iowa · 1989

21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API