John Moeller, Attorney at Law

Protect Your Rights & Your Freedom

Contact John O. Moeller now
1-563-323-3014

CASE STUDY

REPORTED AND FILED CASES
A case resolved to the client’s satisfaction without trial or appeal and sometimes without even filing suit is generally preferred by attorney and client. Not all cases can be settled on terms favorable or acceptable to the client. The cases described here are not necessarily successful. They are described to illustrate the scope and nature of my practice.
Appellate Cases
Iowa Appellate Courts
Ludtke vs. Iowa DOT, 646 N.W.2d 62 (Iowa 2002) (OWI implied consent.)

Mercer vs. Pittway Corporation, 616 N.W.2d 601 (Iowa 2000) (Products liability case, punitive damages reversed on appeal and case remanded for retrial.)

State vs. Mehner, 480 N.W.2nd 872 (Iowa 1992) (Conviction in drug case affirmed.)

State vs. Nelson, 480 N.W.2d 900 (Iowa App. 1991) (Verdict of guilty in drug delivery case reversed)

Harris vs. Jones, 476 N.W.2nd 54 (Iowa 1991) (Procedural issues concerning effect of dismissal in small claims court and later litigation between same parties in district court.)

State vs. Rudd, 454 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa 1990) (Iowa Supreme Court affirmed drug conviction. The Iowa Supreme court decided years later to formally reverse their ruling and agreed with my contention in Rudd.

State vs. Dandridge, 454 N.W.2d 598 (Iowa 1990) (New sentencing ordered in drug case)

State vs. Ludtke, 446 N.W.2d 797 (Iowa 1989) (Reversal of district court order forfeiting property)

Roeder vs. Nolan, 321 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 1982) (Landlord tenant small claims dispute accepted for review by Supreme Court)
8th Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. vs. Griffin, 482 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 2007) (Internet pornography issue concerning the transmission of digital file via the internet.   Trial court decision affirmed.  This case was disagreed with by another court of appeals.  See U.S. v Geiner, 498 F. 3d 1104 (10th Cir., 2007)The case was later disagreed with by another circuit court, see U.S. vs. Geiner, 498 F.3d 1004.

U.S. vs. Pizano, 421 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2005) (Convictions in federal conspiracy, drug and money laundering cases affirmed)
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Harmon vs. Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers, Local Union 371 and U.S. Department of Labor, 832, F.2d, 976 (7th Cir. 1987) (Case involved Section 504 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act prohibiting union business agent from maintaining position after deferred sentence in Iowa Court charge for arson.)
Supreme Court of the United States
Pizano vs. U.S., 546 U.S. 1202, Petition for writ of cert. was denied.
Scott County District Court
Professional Negligence:

Radloff vs. Hunter and Osco Drug, Case No. 105214. (Medical malpractice and pharmacy malpractice claimed filed on behalf of client suffering complete loss of vision in both eyes as result of temporal arteritis. Claim against Dr. Hunter settled prior to trial. Claim against Osco Drug settled on morning of trial after favorable evidentiary ruling.)
Blanchard vs. Country Preferred Insurance Company, 2011 WL5B77020, Iowa Court of Appeals, November 23, 2011.  District court ruling granting the insurance company’s motion for summary judgment based upon contractual limiitation in the policy for filing the underinsured motorist benefit flaim was reveresed.  Plaintiff Blanchard was allowed to make his claim for underinsured motorist benefits to Country, his “own” insurance company. 
State of Iowa  vs. Clarence Judy, 780 N. W.2d 248 (2010).  Iowa Court of Appeals, No 08-1430, 2010.  Nude dancing case.  I assisted defense as attorney for amicus curie Jeffery Marshall and Davenport Bar Investments, Inc.  State argued trial court finding that defendant was not guilty was legally and factually incorrect.  The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. 
United States vs. Oronia-Vera, 565 F.3d. 1074 (2009).  United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.  Defendan’ts conviction for aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 USC Section 1028(a)(1) following trial to the district court was reversed.   The government is required to show that the defendant knew that the means of identification at issue  belonged to another person.  The charge was dismissed.
United States vs. Rex Clark. U.S. District Clerk Southern District of Iowa. Defendant Rex Clark’s motion to exclude opinion evidence pursuant to Rules 104(a), 403 and 702. Fed. R. Evid. 2004WL5560714.
EVALUATION OF SMOKE DETECTOR PERFORMANCE IN RESIDENTAL FIRES by Attorney John O. Moeller