Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Larry R. Hedlund v. State of Iowa

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided June 28, 2019No. 18-0567Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

APPEL, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I. Introduction.

I concur in part and dissent in part. I concur in the majority's conclusion that a whistleblower claim is available to Hedlund under Walsh v. Wahlert , 913 N.W.2d 517 (Iowa 2018). I also concur that the district court properly dismissed Hedlund's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

I write on two issues. First, I dissent from the affirmance of summary judgment on Hedlund's civil rights claim. Second, I agree with the majority's result on the remedial questions regarding Iowa Code section 70A.28(5)(a )…

2Cases cited139 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
  4. Rovilma Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2005
  5. St. Mary's Honor Center v. HicksSupreme Court of the United States · 1993

134 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