# Laurie Freeman, Sharon Mockmore, Beccy Boysel, Gary D. Boysel, Linda L. Goreham, Gary R. Goreham, Kelcey Brackett, and Bobbie Lynn Weatherman v. Grain Processing Corporation

> Supreme Court of Iowa · May 12, 2017 · 895 N.W.2d 105

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9875336

## Case

- **Full name:** Laurie FREEMAN, Sharon Mockmore, Beccy Boysel, Gary D. Boysel, Linda L. Goreham, Gary R. Goreham, Kelcey Brackett, and Bobbie Lynn Weatherman, Appellees, v. GRAIN PROCESSING CORPORATION, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** May 12, 2017
- **Citations:** 895 N.W.2d 105; 47 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20071; 2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 48; 2017 WL 1967416
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Appel
- **Judges:** Waterman, Appel
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9875336

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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))

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9875336. Public record. Not legal advice.