Case law

Olander v. Hollowell

193 Iowa 979 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 21, 1922

The privilege and immunity clause (Art:- IV, See. 2) providing for guaranties to which citizens of the several states are entitled are privileges and immunities which they enjoy as citizens of the United States, and the clause … has no relation to privileges and immunities which appertain to citizenship in the states as distinguished from citizenship in the United States.

Roselene Sanon and Nemi Sanon, Individually and as Administrators of the Estate of Nehmson D. Sanon, and Paulette Cezil Pogue, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Gael Cezil Hrispin v. City of Pella

Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 26, 2015

A swimming pool that is 8 ft deep or deeper shall be closed if the main drain is not clearly visible from the deck. Id. r. 641—15.4(2)(c). … These include chapters 137C (Hotel Sanitation Code), 137D (Home Food Establishments), and 137F (Food Establishments and Food Processing Plants). Each chapter has its own unique penalty provision.

City of West Branch v. Miller

546 N.W.2d 598 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Apr 17, 1996

The latter clearly waives governmental immunity. We see no reason why the same rule should not apply to the former. … Section 670.4 clearly provides that if a liability insurance policy is purchased covering the section 670.4 exceptions, governmental immunity is waived as to those exceptions to the extent stated in the policy.

Cubit v. Mahaska County

677 N.W.2d 777 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Apr 7, 2004

The plaintiffs argument ignores well-established rules of statutory interpretation. “When we interpret a statute, we attempt to give effect to the general assembly’s intent in enacting the law. … Therefore, we simply were not faced in Keystone with the question that is at issue here, where one of two negligent acts clearly occurred in connection with an emergency response.

Keystone Electrical Manufacturing, Co. v. City of Des Moines

586 N.W.2d 340 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Nov 25, 1998

These principles suggest that the primary factor in determining whether a particular activity qualifies as a discretionary function is whether the decision to act involves the evaluation of broad policy factors. … Did the City establish the act of God affirmative defense? A. The parties’ contentions.

Rees v. O'MALLEY

461 N.W.2d 833 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Oct 17, 1990

O’Malley asserted, in response, that his use of the word extortion was not slander per se, and, even if his statements were slanderous per se, he possessed a qualified privilege that immunized him from any liability that … Clearly, in the context of this discussion, O’Mal-ley’s reference to extortion is unambiguous.

Kersten Co., Inc. v. Department of Social Services

207 N.W.2d 117 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Apr 25, 1973

The Department of Social Services was established by chapter 209, Laws of the Sixty-second General Assembly, Regular Session (1967). … It is not clear if the State wants us to reverse on that ground; but if so, the premise is clearly wrong. Without retreating from what we rather testily said in State v.

Wilson v. Nepstad

282 N.W.2d 664 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 25, 1979

Why should the establishment of duty become more difficult when the state is the defendant? Where there is no immunity, the state is to be treated like a private litigant. … To hold under these circumstances, as a matter of law, the county should be immune from liability for failing to post a stop sign in a situation clearly entailing foreseeable harm or damage to persons traveling on its secondary

Train Unlimited Corp. v. Iowa Railway Finance Authority

362 N.W.2d 489 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Feb 13, 1985

Grubb upheld the validity of legislation establishing the Iowa Housing Finance Authority against a challenge based on article VII, section 5. … Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges and Immunities Challenges.

Adam v. State

380 N.W.2d 716 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 15, 1986

A determination that the State acted negligently does not alone establish liability. Inquiry must be made as to whether the State has lifted its cloak of immunity. Lloyd v. State, 251 N.W.2d 551, 556 (Iowa 1977). … The State has waived immunity for “claims”. § 25A.4.

Gordon Berg Garrison v. New Fashion Pork LLP and BWT Holdings LLP

Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 30, 2022

The CAFO defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statutory immunity in Iowa Code section 657.11 and the plaintiff’s lack of evidence to establish he qualified for an exception to the immunity or prove causation … In that case, the evidence was sufficient to establish a nuisance: [I]n regard to the plaintiff’s house it is clearly established that offensive odors were almost constantly perceived within it, and that

Shonka v. Campbell

260 Iowa 1178 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 11, 1967

This is because the claim of the guest has already been established and the only issue which remains is the equitable distribution of the burden of that claim. In Powers v. … This arrangement would hardly qualify Mrs. Rice as a "Good Samaritan" as was the defendant in Nesci v. Willey, 247 Iowa 621 , 75 N.W.2d 257 .

Hutchinson v. Smith Laboratories, Inc.

392 N.W.2d 139 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Aug 20, 1986

“We find an abuse of discretion when such discretion is exercised on grounds or for such reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Hoekstra v. … Doctors Hospital, Inc., 50 F.R.D. at 251 (hospital’s minutes and reports entitled to a qualified privilege on the basis of “overwhelming public interest”); Segal v.

Estate of David Paul McFarlin by Its Personal Representative, Jamie Laass Jamie Laass, Individually And Jamie Laass, as Parent and Next Friend of S.L. v. State of Iowa

881 N.W.2d 51 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 17, 2016

We apply a two-step test to evaluate whether a challenged act qualifies for the discretionary-function exception. Schneider v. State, 789 N.W.2d 138, 146 (Iowa 2010). … Both prongs of the- test are important; “the mere exercise of judgment is not sufficient to establish discretionary-function immunity because some form of judgment is exercised in virtually all human endeavors.”

In Re the Testimony of Girdler v. State

357 N.W.2d 595 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Nov 14, 1984

The object of statutory interpretation is to discover the true intention of the legislature considering the clearly-stated objects and purposes involved. Lau v. … constitution will provide him with use and derivative use immunity with respect to any testimony compelled under the conditions established in rule 19(3).

Gorman v. Adams

259 Iowa 75 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 14, 1966

The city in its brief clearly states that the issue is governmental immunity and thus abandons failure to state a cause of action as a ground for dismissal. … Permitting the parking of buses and the establishment of loading zones in the street in front of plaintiff’s place of business was held to be a nuisance, in Gates v.

Kevin Walker v. State of Iowa

801 N.W.2d 548 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Aug 12, 2011

A governmental entity is entitled to immunity only to the extent permitted by statute. Doe, 652 N.W.2d at 443 . *555 “[Liability is the rule and immunity the exception.” Id. … The court, therefore, found the regulations clearly gave the prison personnel discretion in determining whether to sanction Perez. 5 Id.

Laura H. Fulps and Charles B. Fulps v. City of Urbandale

Supreme Court of Iowa · Mar 19, 2021

Moreover, conventional tort principles and the doctrine of qualified official immunity offer some protection to municipal employees. . . . … We decline to adopt the confusing and inconsistent public duty doctrine as a means of limiting the liability of government employees who are already protected to some extent by the doctrine of qualified official immunity

Gregory v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa

777 N.W.2d 395 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 22, 2010

The General Assembly passed legislation establishing the Fund in 1945. … She clearly did.

Monroe v. RAZOR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

252 Iowa 1249 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Aug 15, 1961

of such immunity. … But we also said: “Likewise, we may consider it established * * * that if there had been negligence on the part of the defendants they could claim no share in governmental immunity from suit.” Pumphrey v.