BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AMES COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DENNIS CULLINAN, Defendant-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-424 / 05-1059
Filed March 14, 2007
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
AMES COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
DENNIS CULLINAN,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Kurt L. Wilke, Judge.
School board appeals from a district court order affirming an adjudicator’s
decision that found no just cause to terminate the contract of a high school
basketball coach. AFFIRMED.
Ronald L. Peeler of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Corey R. Lorenzen and David J. Dutton of Dutton, Braun, Staack &
Hellman, P.L.C., Waterloo, for appellee.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
ZIMMER, J.
The Board of Directors of the Ames Community School District (Board)
appeals from a district court order affirming an adjudicator’s decision that found
there was no just cause to terminate the coaching contract of high school
basketball coach Dennis Cullinan, reversed the Board’s decision to terminate
Cullinan’s coaching contract, and ordered the Board to reinstate the contract.
We affirm the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Cullinan was hired as the Ames High School Basketball Coach, beginning
with the 1996-1997 school year. 1 On April 14, 1998, while still on probationary
status, Cullinan received a “Job Performance Memorandum” from Athletic
Director David Posegate. The memorandum stated there had been complaints
Cullinan did not value all team members and had threatened or intimidated some
athletes.
The memo did not indicate whether the complaints had been
substantiated, but noted “public perception can result in perceptions that, true or
not, must be addressed in a positive manner.” It also stated that Cullinan was
expected to make “significant improvements” in these areas during the next
school year. Cullinan agreed to extend his probationary status for another year.
There
were
no
further
concerns
regarding
Cullinan’s
coaching
performance until the 2001-2002 season, when several new student and parent
complaints were lodged regarding Cullinan’s coaching style.
Following an
investigation the new athletic director, Pat Heiderscheit, concluded allegations of
1
Cullinan was also hired as a social studies teacher. However, this matter involves only
Cullinan’s coaching contract.
3
profanity
and
disrespectful
comments
towards
student-athletes
were
substantiated, and that Cullinan had “thus far fallen short of the directive he was
given by Mr. Posegate.” Heiderschiet concluded that “[c]hanges are necessary.
Either Mr. Cullinan needs to change how he addresses or interacts with his
players or the district needs to change the person responsible for leadership in
the boys’ basketball program.”
On July 2, 2002, Assistant Superintendent Tim Taylor directed Cullinan to
prepare a remediation plan with specific elements, including student-athlete and
parent surveys, student-athlete interviews, and provisions for direct interaction
with student-athletes. The memo set forth expectations for each element of the
plan, including the following: “It is critical that in the future, when handling or
dealing with acute individual student-athlete corrections, that corrections must be
. . . [d]one in the presence of an assistant coach or . . . the student’s counselor or
parent . . . .” The directive ended with a warning that “[a] copy of this letter will be
placed in your permanent personnel file with the expectation that any future
similar incidents will, no doubt, lead to serious disciplinary actions up to and
including possible termination from duties.”
Cullinan prepared and submitted a remediation plan. The plan contained
a “Positive and Corrective Verbal Reinforcement” section, which included
provisions for handling “Individual Player Correction” and “Acute Individual
Student-Athlete Corrections.”
The plan did not require acute individual
corrections to occur in the presence of an assistant coach or other adult.
Cullinan’s plan was accepted by the current athletic director, Judge Johnston,
and Superintendent W. Ray Richardson.
4
Cullinan received a positive year-end evaluation after the 2002-2003
school year from Athletic Director Johnston.
The evaluation ended with the
following statements: “Denny [Cullinan] and I have had numerous conversations
and updates throughout the year regarding his positive handling of the team. We
will continue to monitor and expect this coaching style to continue well into the
future.” The evaluation made no reference to the remediation plan. In addition,
surveys and other assessment methods required by the remediation plan were
not continued into the 2003-2004 season.
No further concerns arose until a December 16, 2003, basketball game
with rival Urbandale.
Towards the end of the game, Cullinan instructed the
players that they were not to dribble the ball. Player Alex Thompson ignored the
directive, and the ball was stolen from him. After the game, which Ames won by
eight points, Cullinan asked an assistant coach to bring Thompson to him. The
meeting involved only Cullinan and Thompson. It took place in a public hallway
that was the primary exit and entrance to the gymnasium, approximately ten to
twelve feet from an open door to an office where assistant coaches were present.
Sometime in the next few days Thompson’s parents contacted
Superintendent Richardson to complain about the meeting. Richardson initiated
an investigation. Cullinan was eventually interviewed and admitted to meeting
alone with Thompson. School officials determined Cullinan had admitted to a
violation of the 2002 directive, and imposed a two-game suspension. School
officials also prepared and distributed a player survey, to be completed and
returned anonymously, and interviewed players and parents. It was eventually
recommended that Cullinan’s coaching contract be terminated.
5
On April 28, 2004, Superintendent Richardson served Cullinan with a
notice and recommendation to terminate his coaching contract pursuant to Iowa
Code sections 279.15 and 279.19A (2003). The notice indicated termination was
recommended due to Cullinan’s failure to (1) effectively lead the boys’ basketball
program and (2) adequately remediate leadership deficiencies.
Cullinan
requested a private hearing, which was held on June 15 and 16, and July 13,
2004. Following the hearing, the Board voted to terminate Cullinan’s coaching
contract for the 2003-2004 school year, and to not renew his contract for the
following season.
The Board concluded Cullinan’s meeting with Thompson was an acute
individual student-athlete correction, and that Cullinan had violated the 2002
directive that such meetings occur in the presence of another adult. The Board
concluded it was understood that the remediation plan was in effect at the time of
the meeting and, even though it was not part of the written remediation plan, it
was understood that acute individual corrections were to be done in the presence
of another adult. The Board further found that, even if the meeting was not an
acute individual correction required to held in the presence of another adult,
Cullinan’s behavior was nevertheless intimidating and in violation of prior
directives to modify his coaching behavior.
Although the Board determined the meeting alone provided a sufficient
basis for termination of Cullinan’s coaching contract, it also pointed to the results
of the interviews and anonymous player surveys as evidence Cullinan was no
longer instilling a positive, supportive atmosphere. The Board found Cullinan
6
was primarily responsible for dissension in the program and had failed to improve
his leadership skills despite numerous warnings.
Cullinan timely filed for review by an adjudicator.
The adjudicator
concluded the Board’s decision should be reversed because it was not supported
by the evidence and it was unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious.
The
adjudicator held there was no just cause for Cullinan’s termination and ordered
his coaching contract to be reinstated with back pay. The Board then filed a
petition for judicial review. Following a hearing, the district court affirmed the
adjudicator’s decision.
The Board appeals. It contends the district court erred in (1) failing to rule
Cullinan’s ineffective leadership and failure to correct past leadership deficiencies
were “just cause” for terminating his coaching contract, (2) ruling the Board’s
decision was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, and
(3) affirming the adjudicator’s decision that the Board’s decision was arbitrary,
unreasonable, or capricious.
II. Scope and Standards of Review.
Our review is for the correction of errors at law. Walthart v. Board of Dirs.,
694 N.W.2d 740, 744 (Iowa 2005).
The question before us is whether the
Board’s findings are supported by a preponderance of the competent evidence in
the record. Id. In conducting such a review, “especially when considering the
credibility of witnesses, the court shall give weight to the fact findings of the
board; but shall not be bound by them.” Iowa Code §§ 279.17-.18.
7
III. Discussion.
Cullinan’s coaching contract can be terminated only for “just cause.” See
Iowa Code §§ 279.15(2), .19A(2). The existence of just cause is a fact specificinquiry dependent upon the circumstances of a particular case. See Briggs v.
Board of Dirs., 282 N.W.2d 740, 743 (Iowa 1979). Although just cause has not
been expressly addressed in the context of an extracurricular contract,
in the context of teacher fault a “just cause” is one which directly or
indirectly significantly and adversely affects what must be the
ultimate goal of every school system: high quality education for the
district's students. It relates to job performance including leadership
and role model effectiveness. It must include the concept that a
school district is not married to mediocrity but may dismiss
personnel who are neither performing high quality work nor
improving in performance. On the other hand, “just cause” cannot
include reasons which are arbitrary, unfair, or generated out of
some petty vendetta.
Id.
Our consideration of this matter is necessarily limited to the allegations of
just cause contained within the notice to Cullinan: (1) failure to effectively lead
the boys’ basketball program and (2) failure to adequately remediate leadership
deficiencies. In assessing the evidence in support of these allegations, we agree
with Cullinan that evidence of his past leadership deficiencies cannot alone serve
as a basis for termination. However, such evidence is relevant to the question of
whether past deficiencies have been remediated. See Sheldon Cmty. Sch. Dist.
Bd. of Dirs. v. Lundblad, 528 N.W.2d 593, 596 (Iowa 1995) (concluding board
may consider past incidents that individually had been satisfactorily resolved, to
the extent they demonstrate a pattern of behavior).
8
The Board’s just cause determination was based on two findings. First,
the Board found the December 16 meeting with Thompson was either (1) an
acute individual correction that required the presence of another adult, or
(2) intimidating and thus in violation of earlier warnings to modify Cullinan’s
coaching behavior. Second, the Board found, based on post-incident surveys
and interviews, that Cullinan was no longer providing a motivating, supportive
atmosphere, and that his handling of the boys basketball program resulted in low
team morale and was the primary cause of dissension in the program. We agree
with the Board that the foregoing findings, if shown, would constitute failure to
effectively lead the boys basketball program and failure to remediate past
leadership deficiencies, which in turn would provide just cause for termination of
Cullinan’s coaching contract. However, upon review of the record we, like the
adjudicator and the district court, conclude the underlying findings are not
supported by a preponderance of the competent evidence.
A. December 16 Meeting with Thompson. We first address the Board’s
determination that Cullinan violated the 2002 directive when he conducted an
acute individual correction without the presence of another adult.
Cullinan
asserts the meeting was not an acute individual correction, and moreover that he
was free to conduct even acute individual corrections without another adult
present. In regard to the latter assertion, we recognize the accepted remediation
plan did not require acute individual corrections to take place in the presence of
another adult, and that it is unclear whether the remediation plan remained in
effect at the time of the December 16 meeting. Nevertheless, testimony from
Cullinan and his representative from the Iowa State Education Association
9
(ISEA), as well as testimony from school administrators, indicated that Cullinan
recognized a continuing need to have an adult present when he engaged in
acute individual corrections.
We accordingly agree with the Board that
conducting an acute individual correction without another adult present would
have been evidence of Cullinan’s failure to remediate past leadership
deficiencies.
However, we agree with Cullinan that the preponderance of
evidence in the record does not support a determination that the December 16
meeting was an acute individual correction.
Although, prior to the hearing, no clear definition of acute individual
correction was ever supplied to or by Cullinan, the Board found the term
encompassed “[r]eprimands, conflicts, scoldings, or individual criticisms . . . .” To
the extent the Board’s definition encompassed any individual criticism or
correction of a player, it lacks adequate evidentiary support.
However, a
definition that encompasses reprimands, negative or confrontational criticisms,
the correction of severe and urgent problems, and similar situations, is supported
by Cullinan’s own testimony, the language of the remediation plan, and the plain
and ordinary meaning of the words used. See Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary 23 (2002) (defining word “acute,” in relevant part, as “serious, urgent,
and demanding attention”; “intensified or aggravated nearly to a crisis,
culmination, or breaking point”; or “extreme, severe, critical”); id. at 1987
(defining word “reprimand,” in relevant part, as “a severe or formal reproof” or “a
sharp rebuke”).
Based on Cullinan’s testimony, the December 16 meeting did not rise to
the level of an acute individual correction. Cullinan admitted the team had not
10
played up to expectations, but asserted that, in light of the poor start to the
season, the fact Urbandale had won the sixteen prior match ups between the two
rivals, and the injury of some key players, he was “ecstatic” about the team’s
December 16 win. He testified he began the meeting by stating, “Nice win,” and
that Thompson responded he knew why Cullinan wanted to see him and he
apologized. Cullinan told Thompson, a top college recruit, that he had been
stopped by another coach after the game and asked what it was like to coach
Thompson. Cullinan thought the other coach was implying that Thompson was
an uncooperative or egotistical player, and he wanted to remind Thompson that
there is always someone watching, and that people would form an opinion about
Thompson based on his behavior during the game.
Cullinan stated he talked to Thompson, a team captain, about leadership,
and shared some points he had learned at a recent conference.
He told
Thompson that players and coaches need to be “on the same page” and,
emphasizing his own experience as a player and coach, that Thompson needed
to trust the coaching staff. According to Cullinan, Thompson questioned whether
Cullinan believed he was a better player than Thompson, and that he had replied
there was no comparison between athletes playing so many years apart.
Cullinan stated that, other than explaining he could not consider Thompson’s
request to play post until some injured players returned to the game, the rest of
the meeting was essentially small talk.
Cullinan admitted he had made a
comment about having done everything he could to help Thompson in his
recruitment efforts, but stated he had done so in the context of asking Thompson
to “work together and bring the team forward . . . .” He asserted there was no
11
anger during the meeting, which ended with a handshake.
Cullinan denied
disciplining, demeaning, or criticizing Thompson.
Thompson did not testify, and thus did not directly refute Cullinan’s
account of the meeting.
The Board nevertheless determined that Cullinan’s
version of events was not entirely credible in light of the demeanor of the various
witnesses, certain surrounding circumstances, and hearsay testimony.
The Board dismissed Cullinan’s assertion that he was not angry, noting
that the team had not been playing up to preseason expectations and had
faltered in a game that should have been an “easy win,” that Thompson had
disobeyed a coaching directive, and that a witness had testified Cullinan stated
“he was so angry he wasn’t sure what he would do with Alex.” Our review of the
record convinces us that little weight should be placed on any of the foregoing.
Significantly, we do not find the above-noted witness testimony in the
record. The only testimony that is somewhat similar to the foregoing was given
by Thompson’s father, who asserted that, according to his son, Cullinan “seemed
very upset and was saying that he needed to talk to him right now or he didn’t
know what he would have done if he didn’t talk to him right now.” Thus, the
Board’s finding misstates the record, and incorrectly indicates the witness had
first-hand knowledge of the alleged statement.
In addition, the statement is hearsay.
While hearsay testimony is
admissible in Board hearings, the proper weight to be given to such testimony, by
either the Board or the reviewing court, depends on a number of factors including
“the circumstances of the case, the credibility of the witness, the credibility of the
declarant, the circumstances in which the statement was made, the consistency
12
of the statement with other corroborating evidence, and other factors as well.”
Walthart, 694 N.W.2d at 744-45. Here, the Board seemed willing to accept a
second-hand assertion of Cullinan’s anger over Cullinan’s express denials, not
because it found Thompson or his father to be particularly credible, but because
it presumed Cullinan would be angry, and would express that anger to
Thompson, in light of the surrounding circumstances.
The Board appeared to accept Cullinan’s explanation of what was said
during the meeting while rejecting his assertion that the meeting was intended to
be and in fact was conducted in a supportive and motivational manner.
In
essence, the Board seems to have found that Cullinan delivered his correction of
Thompson in an angry and inappropriate manner because that is what the
circumstances dictated. For example, the Board presumed Cullinan would be
upset, even though the team won a close game, because in the Board’s
estimation it should have been an “easy win.” It also rejected the notion that the
meeting was “a supportive, motivating ‘let’s build a team together/leadership’
meeting” because it believed such a meeting was unlikely to occur so soon after
a player had disobeyed a coach. It discounted Cullinan’s assertion that he was
sharing motivational information from a recent conference, apparently concluding
that if he had intended to share such information with his players he would have
done so soon after returning from the conference, and would not have waited
until a player disobeyed a directive.
Notably absent from the Board’s findings are any facts demonstrating that
Cullinan’s comments to Thompson in fact constituted an acute individual
correction.
An acute individual correction does not occur merely because
13
Cullinan was, as the Board found, “dissatisfied with [Thompson’s] attitude and
was trying to correct it.”
As reflected by the remediation plan, not every
correction rises to the level of an acute individual correction. Absent credible
proof that Cullinan was engaged in a reprimand, negative or confrontational
criticism, the correction of a severe and urgent problem, or similar behavior, there
is insufficient support for the determination that the December 16 meeting was an
acute individual correction. 2
We therefore turn to the Board’s finding that, even if the December 16
meeting did not constitute an acute individual correction, it was nevertheless
intimidating and in violation of prior directives. The Board’s finding of intimidation
appears to turn largely on a determination that a player in Thompson’s situation
would have found the meeting intimidating.
The Board determined that
any student . . . would have felt intimidated being pulled aside
individually in a hallway alone right after the game and being told to
“trust the coaches,” that other persons were asking if he were
difficult to coach, and to get on the same page with the coach.
It then determined, based on the circumstances of the meeting, that Cullinan
intentionally intimidated Thompson:
2
We recognize the record contains some additional evidence from Thompson’s parents
and Superintendent Richardson indicating Cullinan was angry during the meeting or
made demeaning comments. However, the Board did not cite to any of this evidence as
providing support for its just cause determination, and it did not make specific credibility
determinations regarding it. Moreover, upon our review of this evidence, we conclude it
is entitled to little weight. The hearsay nature of the testimony from Thompson’s father
and the e-mails from Thompson’s mother raise concerns regarding its reliability. In
addition, to the extent the e-mails indicated the alleged statements by Cullinan were
belittling, critical, or abusive, it is unclear whether Thompson’s mother is repeating her
son’s descriptions of the encounter, or providing her own characterizations of the
statements.
Finally, we note that Superintendent Richardson’s testimony was
contradicted by not only Cullinan, but by Cullinan’s ISEA representative.
14
The totality of the circumstances - in the hallway with no one else
present, immediately following the student’s violation of a coaching
directive in a game situation, mention of an outside college coach
questioning his coachability, discussion of leadership and trusting
coaches, reminding [Thompson] that he owed the Coach for the
efforts he had made on his behalf, telling him to get on the “same
page” with the Coach, - all lead the Board members to believe that
this was indeed an intimidating situation and intended to be so by
the Coach. . . . It is the very type of behavior . . . Coach Cullinan
had used in the past that the administrators has worked so hard
with Coach Cullinan to extinguish and to substitute with what had
proven to be better alternatives.
Once again, it appears the Board made its determinations based on
assumptions, rather than on evidence Cullinan had in fact acted in an intimidating
fashion. While the manner in which the meeting was conducted may have been
intimidating to some players, we cannot agree that any player would have been
intimidated under those circumstances.
Moreover, while the Board indicated
Thompson was more likely to find the meeting intimidating given the stress he
endured as a star player, it seemingly ignored the fact that Thompson may have
been less likely to find the situation intimidating given that the record indicates
Thompson and his parents had a good relationship with Cullinan, who had gone
out of his way to assist Thompson in his efforts to be recruited by a top college
program. Indeed, the apparently positive nature of this relationship, the fact any
past incidents of intimidation had been successfully resolved, and the fact that no
difficulties had reoccurred for well over a year, all weigh in favor of a conclusion
that this was not, and was not intended to be, an intimidating meeting.
Upon review of the competent evidence in the record, we conclude the
Board’s findings that the December 16 meeting was either an acute individual
correction or intimidating and in violation of earlier warnings are not supported by
15
a greater weight of that evidence. Because these were the only grounds given
by the Board in support of its determination that the December 16 meeting
provided a sufficient reason to terminate Cullinan’s coaching contract, we
conclude the Board erred in determining the meeting was just cause for
termination. We therefore turn to the only other basis for termination relied on by
the Board, that surveys and interviews revealed Cullinan had failed to instill a
positive atmosphere and was responsible for low team morale and dissension.
B. Surveys and Interviews. The Board reviewed the anonymous player
surveys that were completed and returned in the course of the investigation of
Thompson’s complaint against Cullinan, and considered the testimony of Athletic
Director Johnston that player and parent interviews had revealed low team
morale. The Board found there was a lack of player motivation and enthusiasm,
and that “[t]here is something seriously wrong when the players on a winning
team are feeling a lack of motivation.” The Board noted the surveys had an
average score of five to six out of ten which was “actually quite pitiful,” and
determined the surveys highlighted “a lack of leadership in instilling a positive,
supportive atmosphere.”
It attributed the current atmosphere to Cullinan’s
coaching style, and concluded Cullinan was “primarily responsible” for the
“continuing dissension among players and parents and himself.”
The Board
concluded the foregoing provided a sufficient basis for terminating Cullinan’s
coaching contract.
If the record credibly demonstrated that Cullinan’s coaching style had led
to a negative atmosphere, lack of motivation, and low team morale, we would
agree with the Board that this was evidence of Cullinan’s failure to effectively
16
lead the basketball program. However, the evidence relied on by the Board is
lacking in persuasiveness and reliability.
First and foremost, we are troubled that the Board’s decision was based
largely on ten wholly anonymous player surveys. As Cullinan notes, there is no
way to determine if any of the surveys, which were to be privately completed by
all fifteen players and returned to a mailbox, were in fact completed by student
athletes. In addition, we cannot agree that the surveys provide a comprehensive
picture of Cullinan’s ability to lead the program.
Even if we assume the ten returned surveys were completed by student
athletes, the responses represent the views of only two-thirds of the team. In
addition, the number ranking relied on by the Board was in response to a request
to provide a “Fun” rating for “this season at this point.” Not only is “Fun” a rather
subjective concept, “this point” of the season occurred in the wake of the
controversy created by Thompson’s complaint, the preliminary investigation, and
Cullinan’s suspension. Some of the survey comments indicated that, at least for
some players, their view of the season had been influenced by the controversy. 3
The survey ratings and comments also varied widely, from extremely supportive
(a “Fun” rating of nine and a comment that Cullinan had “always respected and
encouraged me as both a player and a student”) to vitriolic (a “Fun” rating of
three and a comment that Cullinan “is a sick man”). However, the majority of the
3
For example, when asked to list negative experiences during the season one
responder wrote, “[A]sked by my family/friends repeatedly what Coach Cullinan did to be
suspended.” Another wrote, “A certain player had made bad choices and the rest of us
were affected.”
17
surveys rated the “Fun” factor to be at least average, while half of the surveys
provided a “Fun” rating of seven or higher.
Simply stated, in addition to the reliability concerns created by the manner
in which the surveys were completed and returned, we are not convinced they in
fact demonstrate that the program as a whole was suffering from low morale and
lack of motivation. Nor are we convinced that this snapshot of player opinion
adequately reflected the impact of Cullinan’s leadership style. Our opinion does
not change when we review the testimony of Athletic Director Johnston.
Johnston testified that, during interviews conducted after Thompson’s
complaint, players and parents indicated “the desire to compete, the intensity
level was starting to wane seriously,” and there was a “lack of excitement,” but
that “there were no concerns regarding the treatment of them by their coach as
far as verbal abuse, anything of that nature . . . .” While it is possible the lack of
enthusiasm was due to Cullinan’s coaching style, it is also possible the team’s
excitement was starting to wane due to tension created by the complaint,
investigation, and suspension. In addition, while Johnston testified to player and
parent concerns that the assistant coaches were not being used effectively, one
of the assistant coaches wrote a letter in support of Cullinan.
The foregoing evidence does not sufficiently support a determination that
Cullinan’s coaching style was instilling a negative atmosphere, leading to low
team morale, and creating dissension in the program. The Board accordingly
erred in terminating Cullinan’s coaching contract on this basis.
18
IV. Conclusion.
The Board’s determination that Cullinan had failed to effectively lead the
boys’ basketball program and adequately remediate leadership deficiencies is
not supported by the preponderance of competent evidence in the record.
Accordingly, we uphold the district court order that affirmed the adjudicator’s
decision finding no just cause to terminate Cullinan’s coaching contract.
AFFIRMED.
Eisenhauer, J., concurs; Sackett, C.J., dissents.
19
SACKETT, C.J. (dissenting)
I dissent. I would reverse the adjudicator and the district court. Giving the
required weight to the Board’s credibility findings I find the Board’s decision is
supported by a preponderance of competent evidence when the record is viewed
as a whole. See Board of Educ. v. Youel, 282 N.W.2d 677, 679-80 (Iowa 1979);
Board of Dirs. v. Simons, 493 N.W.2d 879, 883 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.