## Facts

- Ronald E. Miller and Kathleen F. Miller owned “The Tool Depot,” with stores in Sioux City and Le Mars, Iowa.
- Lewis Electric Co., an electrical contractor, performed electrical work for Miller at both locations under separate arrangements.
- At the Sioux City store, Lewis Electric performed work on a time-and-materials basis and billed Miller $4,164.53.
- At the Le Mars store, the parties’ agreement on the scope of work was reflected in two bid documents providing a fixed contract price of $49,200.
- Miller paid $30,000 toward the Le Mars contract before a dispute arose.
- The dispute largely concerned the number of light fixtures to be installed and the level of illumination (foot-candles) the fixtures would provide.
- Lewis Electric conceded it did not complete some work after the dispute and reduced the amount it claimed was due under the Le Mars contract to $18,871.64.
- Lewis Electric sued Miller for breach of contract, seeking the Sioux City balance and the remaining amount it claimed under the Le Mars contract.
- Miller denied owing anything further on the Le Mars account, contending Lewis Electric’s Le Mars work was defective.
- Miller also filed a counterclaim for breach of contract seeking the cost to repair Lewis Electric’s allegedly defective work at the Le Mars store.
- The district court found Lewis Electric did not breach the Le Mars contract and ruled for Lewis Electric on its claims, while reducing the Le Mars recovery for work Lewis Electric did not perform after the dispute; the court denied Miller’s counterclaim.
- Miller appealed the judgment relating to the Le Mars contract.
- The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s judgment for Lewis Electric on the Le Mars contract and reversed the denial of Miller’s counterclaim, concluding Lewis Electric breached the Le Mars contract, and it remanded for further proceedings.
- Lewis Electric sought further review in the Iowa Supreme Court, arguing that the court of appeals’ remand instructions required clarification.

## Issues

1. After the court of appeals determined Lewis Electric breached the Le Mars contract, was the district court on remand limited to determining the Millers’ damages, or could it retry broader issues such as breach and liability?

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court took the case on further review for the limited purpose of clarifying the court of appeals’ remand directions.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision on the merits, including the determination that Lewis Electric breached the Le Mars contract.
- The Supreme Court clarified that the scope of remand was limited to determining the damages the Millers incurred as a result of Lewis Electric’s breach regarding the Le Mars work.
- The district court on remand was directed to enter judgment consistent with the appellate rulings after determining the amount of the Millers’ damages; liability for breach was not to be reconsidered.

## Legal Principles

- On further review, the Iowa Supreme Court may review any or all issues decided by the court of appeals, or it may confine review to the issues identified in the application for further review.
- A district court on remand must follow the appellate mandate and may not reopen or reconsider matters already decided by the appellate court.
- When an appellate court has resolved liability and the remaining dispute concerns only the amount of recovery, remand may be limited to determining damages consistent with the appellate decision.
- Clarifying an appellate mandate is appropriate when the remand language could be read to permit litigation of issues that were already conclusively decided on appeal.

## Conclusion

Lewis Electric Co. v. Miller holds that, after the court of appeals determined Lewis Electric breached the Le Mars contract, the district court on remand could decide only the amount of damages the Millers suffered from that breach and then enter judgment accordingly; the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and narrowed the remand to damages alone.


Lewis Electric Co. v. Miller, 791 N.W.2d 691 (2010)