stating “[t]he nuisance statute does not supersede common law nuisance,” which is defined as “an actionable interference with a person’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of the person’s land”
How later courts described this case
- stating “[t]he nuisance statute does not supersede common law nuisance,” which is defined as “an actionable interference with a person’s interest in the private use and enjoyment of the person’s land”
- discussing “priority of location” as a factor for determining the existence of a nuisance
- declining to “engage in free-ranging merits inquiries at the certification stage” (quoting Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 466 (2013))
- “[T]he fact that a potential class action involves individual damage claims does not preclude certification when liability issues are common to the class.” (alteration in original) (citation omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
APPEL, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the generally thorough majority opinion in this case. I write separately, however, to emphasize the difference between Iowa law and federal law on the question of class certification.
Iowa is one of two states that have adopted a version of the Uniform Class Actions Act. Thomas D. Rowe, Jr., State and Foreign Class-Actions Rules and Statutes: Differences from—and Lessons for?—Federal Rule 23, 35 W. St. U. L. Rev. 147 , 150 (2007). One of the purposes of the Uniform Class Actions Act was to create a more generous standard for class certification because “federal courts have severely restricted the availability of class actions in their forum.” Irving Scher, Opening State Courts to Class Actions: The Uniform, Class Actions Act, 32 Business Lawyer 75, 86 (1976). Consistent with the Uniform Class Actions Act upon which they are based, Iowa courts have consistently stated “[o]ur class-action rules are remedial in nature and should be liberally construed to favor the maintenance of class actions.” Comes v. Microsoft Corp., 696 N.W.2d 318, 320 (Iowa 2005); accord Anderson Contracting, Inc. v. DSM Copolymers, Inc., 776 N.W.2d 846, 848 (Iowa 2009); Lucas v. Pioneer, Inc., 256 N.W.2d 167, 175 (Iowa 1977). In light of this legislative history and our caselaw, federal class action precedent is of limited value in *131 determining class certification under Iowa law.