Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Estate of David Paul McFarlin by Its Personal Representative, Jamie Laass Jamie Laass, Individually And Jamie Laass, as Parent and Next Friend of S.L. v. State of Iowa

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided June 17, 2016No. 14–1180Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHecht, Justice

I agree with the majority’s conclusion that various provisions in chapter 461A, standing alone, do not create a private right of action for alleged violation of them. However, I dissent on the other issues because I believe the public-duty doctrine does not foreclose the common 'law claims and discretionary-function immunity does not arise under the circumstances of this case. I would vacate the decision of the court of appeals, reverse the district court’s summary judgment ruling, and remand for trial.

I. The Public-Duty Doctrine.

The public-duty doctrine is not new. See Held v. Bagwell, 58…

2Cases cited49 opinions

  1. Berkovitz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  2. Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1988
  3. Brennen v. City of EugeneOregon Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Southers v. City of FarmingtonSupreme Court of Missouri · 2008
  5. Thompson v. KaczinskiSupreme Court of Iowa · 2009

44 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