Teggatz v. Ringleb

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a restitution order in a criminal case did not preclude a victim from relitigating the issue of damages in a later civil case
• explaining that “the purpose of the restitution statute is to protect the public by compensating victims of criminal activities”
• holding “if the terms of the statute are explicit, the plain meaning of the language will be applied [and] we will simply give effect to the statute as written” (citation omitted)
• stating “the amount recovered under the Iowa restitution statute is not treated as a civil judgment”
• stating “the amount recovered under the Iowa restitution statute is not treated as a civil judgment”
• giving effect to section 910.8 as written, even though the statute may appear to conflict with traditional application of issue preclusion, because that was the decision made by the legislature when it enacted that provision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).