Jury Instructions (Judge Bennett)
This section of the web site allows you to access selected jury instructions. The instructions are organized by categories listed on the lower left portion of this page. If you would like to do a word search of the entire database or individual categories you may do so by clicking on the search button below.




JudgeCan be sorted ascendingCase TypeDate FiledCase Name
Hide details for Mark W. BennettMark W. Bennett
Hide details for CivilCivil
03/13/2014Jay Clasing & Deanna Clasing d/b/a Jade Farms v. Hormel Foods Corporation (Suit by hog finishers against a meat packing company for breach of an oral contract for continued purchases of Candadian-born (Category B) hogs.
01/23/2014Security National Bank, as Conservator for JMK, a minor child v. Abott Laboratories (product defect claims against defendant, the manufacturer of the Similac Neosure powdered infant formula (PIF) that the plaintiff alleges was the source of the bacterial infection that caused JMK’s permanent physical and mental injuries. More specifically, claims of design defect, a manufacturing defect, and a warning defect in the Similac Neosure PIF.)
12/16/2013Peters v. Risdal, et al. (Claims that the Defendant Officers violated Plaintiff's constitutional rights to be free from the use of “excessive force” by law enforcement officers and to be free from “retaliation” by law enforcement officers for exercising free speech rights.).
05/01/2013Hagen v. Siouxland Obstetrics & Gynecology, et al. (wrongful discharge - public policy - instructions show with strike outs portions withdrawn from the jury's consideration))
11/16/2012EAD Control Systems, LLC v. Besser Company USA (EAD and Besser entered into a contract for EAD to produce a controls system for operating robotic cranes at a pipe-producing facility that Besser was constructing. EAD alleged that Besser had not paid EAD in full for the work that EAD performed pursuant to the contract. Besser alleged that EAD failed to perform in accordance with the contract.)
10/02/2012Gene Luken v. Tina Marie Edwards
04/11/2012Gilster v. Primebank, et al. (Claims of sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment in violation of federal and Iowa law.)
11/07/2011Shannon v. Koehler (Excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
08/22/2011Maxim v. Dental Care, Scott Thompson, & Rod Stewart (Breach of contract and discharge in violation of public policy claims).
04/01/2011State of Arizona Department of Law, Civil Rights Division & Aguilar v. ASARCO LLC (sexual harrasment/retaliation/constructive discharge)
11/09/2009Bodeans Cone Co. , LLC v. Norse Dairy Sys., LLC (Antitrust action for injunctive relief and damages by one maker of novelty cones and ice cream sandwich wafers against another maker: Court’s final version of Jury Instructions, prepared before trial, on claims of monopolization, attempt to monopolize, exclusive dealing, and tying. Case settled prior to trial.)
11/04/2009Bodeans Cone Co., LLC v. Norse Dairy Sys., LLC (Antitrust action for injunctive relief and damages by one maker of novelty cones and ice cream sandwich wafers against another maker: Court’s final version of Glossary of Antitrust Terminology to accompany Jury Instructions, prepared before trial, on claims of monopolization, attempt to monopolize, exclusive dealing, and tying. Case settled prior to trial.)
03/05/2009Ronald Kuiper & Conley Kuiper v. Givaudan Flavors Corp. ( Claims for a lung injury to Ronald Kuiper allegedly caused by inhaling fumes from butter flavorings made by Givaudan that were used by Kuiper’s employer, American Pop Corn Company, to make microwave popcorn. Claims include: defective designe; failure to provide adequate warnings; and failure to test the butter flavorings for hazardous health effects when they were used in foreseeable ways. Damages: the lung injury to Ronald Kuiper and the injury to his relationship with his wife, Conley Kuiper, allegedly caused by Givaudan’s defective design, failure to warn, and failure to test.)
03/05/2009Ronald Kuiper & Conley Kuiper v. Givaudan Flavors Corp. (Supplemental Jury Instructions)
02/02/2009Transamerica Life Insurance, et al. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance (Patent Infringement)
05/16/2007Raymond v. U.S.A. Healthcare Center -- Fort Dodge, LLC, et al. (Allegations of termination in violation of Iowa law, because plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim for a wrist injury that she suffered on the job. Plaintiff sought damages for the defendants’ allegedly retaliatory conduct.
The defendants denied the claim and contended that they lawfully terminated plaintiff's employment.)
12/13/2006Davidson v. Kinseth Hospitality Corp., et al. (Plaintiff claimed that, from shortly after she was hired until she was terminated, she was subjected to sexual harassment by a supervisor, sexual discrimination in the form of different treatment and pay when compared to similarly-situated male employees, and retaliation for opposing sex discrimination in the work place. She also contended that she was eventually terminated as a result of harassment and discrimination because of her sex and in retaliation for her complaints about sexual discrimination. Plaintiff sought damages for the defendants’ alleged wrongful conduct.
11/10/2005Bunda v. Potter (Plaintiff claims that, she was subjected to hostile work environment sexual harassment and that she was retaliated against for making one or more complaints to a supervisor about this alleged sexual harassment. Ms. Bunda seek damages for sexual harassment and retaliation. The Post Office denies Ms. Bunda’s claims.
11/04/2005Anita Lopez & Maricela Villalpando v. Aramark Uniform Career Apparel, Inc. (Plaintiffs contend that, during their employment, they were subjected to hostile environment sexual harassment and quid pro quo sexual harassment by their supervisor, and retaliation by ARAMARK for complaining about sexual harassment. Ms. Lopez contends that ARAMARK terminated her employment as part of the sexual harassment and retaliation, and Ms. Villalpando contends that ARAMARK constructively discharged her, or forced to quit her job, by allowing the supervisor to sexually harass her and by retaliating against her for complaining about sexual harassment. The plaintiffs seek damages for sexual harassment and retaliation, including damages for loss of employment.
ARAMARK denies each plaintiff’s claims. ARAMARK asserts that no sexual harassment or retaliation occurred, that Ms. Lopez was terminated for absenteeism, and that Ms. Villalpando simply quit her job at ARAMARK without informing ARAMARK of any problems or giving ARAMARK any opportunity to work out any problems.)
01/10/2005Tinius v. St. Anthony Regional Hospital, Inc., et al. (Claims arising from an incident at St. Anthony Regional Hospital in Carroll, Iowa, during which plaintiff contends that he was unlawfully confined against his will and was catheterized without his consent. Plaintiff asserts claims of false imprisonment, medical battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and negligence.)
05/11/2004Engineered Products v. Donaldson Co. (Patent infringement)
02/19/2004Sherman, et al. v. Kasotakis (Plaintiffs assert claims of “racial discrimination in services of a public restaurant.”
More specifically, the plaintiffs, all African Americans, allege that, on or about June 23, 2001, they entered The Horizons Family Restaurant to get something to eat. However, they allege that a server refused to allow them to be seated in a certain section, because of their race, and referred to them in racially insensitive terms. They allege that the host then reseated them in another section of the restaurant, which they noticed was the place where all persons of color had been seated, while white customers were seated in other areas of the restaurant. They allege that their treatment at The Horizons Family Restaurant violated federal law, because it deprived them of the same right to contract for the services of the restaurant as is enjoyed by white citizens.
10/15/2003Coupland v. Team Ford (Suit alleging disparate treatment based on sex in violation of Title VII and the ICRA; plaintiff alleged that Team Ford subjected her to higher work standards than those imposed on male salespersons and then terminated her employment on October 27, 2000, which Team Ford denied, asserting instead that it had legitimate business reasons for terminating Ms. Coupland’s employment.)
02/25/2003Knutson v. AG Processing, Inc.(Suit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, which, among other things, makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate intentionally against an employee because the employer regards or perceives the employee to be disabled. A claim based on this part of the ADA is called a "perceived disability discrimination claim." Plaintiff alleges that he was discharged from his employment because Defendant perceived him to be disabled, even though he is not actually disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Defendant, however, contends that it did not perceive Plaintiff to be disabled, but instead discharged him for videotaping the inside of the Defendant's facility at Eagle Grove, Iowa, where he was employed, without permission.
12/06/2002Wensel v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Title VII employment discrimination case; plaintiff alleges pregnancy discrimination through defendant’s failure to award her an independent insurance agency contract when her training period was extended two times)
10/01/2002Baker v. John Morrell Co. (Sexually hostile work environment and disparate treatment claims under Title VII for predominantly co-worker harassment, retaliation claim, and constructive discharge claim)
07/19/2002Bergdale v. Uni-Select, USA, Inc. (Case brought by plaintiff Maria Bergdale against her former employer defendant Uni-Select USA, Inc., in which Ms. Bergdale alleges claims of discrimination and retaliation arising from her employment and termination. Uni-Select denies Ms. Bergdale’s claims.
Plaintiff asserts the following claims against Uni-Select: (1) discrimination on the basis of her disability, her record of having a disability, or Uni-Select’s perception that she is disabled; (2) discrimination because of her age; (3) retaliation for filing a charge of discrimination; and (4) retaliation for filing workers compensation claims. She seeks an award of compensatory and punitive damages against Uni-Select.
Uni-Select, however, denies that Ms. Bergdale was terminated, maintains that it had legitimate business reasons for the decisions that it made, and denies that it discriminated or retaliated against Ms. Bergdale. Uni-Select also denies that Ms. Bergdale is entitled to recover either compensatory or punitive damages on her claims.
06/06/2002Erickson-Puttmann v. Woodbury County (Civil action brought by plaintiff Patty Erickson-Puttmann against defendant Woodbury County, Iowa. Erickson-Puttmann alleges that she was sexually harassed in her work place by an elected official in another department of County government, the Woodbury County Auditor and Recorder. Erickson-Puttmann alleges that she brought the harassment to the attention of members of the Woodbury County Board of Supervisors on a number of occasions, but that the Board failed to take steps reasonably calculated to stop the harassment. She seeks an award of damages for emotional distress. Although the County admits that Erickson-Puttmann complained to Board members about harassment, the County denied that it failed to take appropriate remedial action.






---hidden fields---