Case law

Gianforte v. Whitehead

773 N.W.2d 540 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Oct 9, 2009

An abuse of discretion occurs when “the court exercise[s] [its] discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” State v. Maghee, 573 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 1997). … The termination of a contract by the board is governed by rules and regulations established by the legislature in chapter 279 of the Code.

Second Injury Fund of Iowa v. Kratzer

778 N.W.2d 42 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 29, 2010

The interpretation of the workers’ compensation statute has not been clearly vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the commissioner. Finch v. … Upon consideration of well-established principles of statutory interpretation, we conclude the latter interpretation is the correct one.

Schwarzkopf v. Sac County Board of Supervisors

341 N.W.2d 1 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Nov 23, 1983

The trial court concluded that a proposed grantee was qualified to obtain a county easement under section 320.4 if it was either (1) a “municipal distributing plant” or (2) a “company ... … A legislature clearly cannot grant jurisdiction to itself where, because of constitutional or territorial restrictions it has none. Thus, the legislature may not validate its own jurisdictional defects.

Miller v. Bryan

3 Iowa 58 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 15, 1856

It would certainly have more fully stated the law, if thus qualified; but when fairly construed, it cannot be said to establish the doctrine, that the fraudulent intention of the vendor alone, would make the sale void. … If the second instruction means that the sale would be void as between Miller and Stewart, unless there was a bill of sale, executed, acknowledged, and Recorded, like deeds of real estate, it is clearly erroneous.

Metier v. Cooper Transport Co., Inc.

378 N.W.2d 907 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Dec 18, 1985

We also accept as established that the area was devoid of warning signs that would alert the public to this hazard. … Lohr, 266 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa 1978) (“Normally, however, referential, relative, or qualifying words and phrases refer only to the immediately preceding antecedent.”).

Steven A. Mueller, Bradley J. Brown, Mark A. Kruse, Kevin D. Miller, and Larry E. Phipps, on Behalf of Themselves and Those Like Situated v. Wellmark, Inc. D/B/A Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa, an Iowa Corporation and Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa, Inc., an Iowa Corporation

818 N.W.2d 244 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 27, 2012

Power & Light Co., 22 F.3d 1260, 1266 (3d Cir. 1994) (“[S]tate action immunity is an affirmative defense as to which [party asserting immunity] bears the burden of proof.”); 1 Louis Altman & Malla Pollack, Callmann on … Supp. 2012) (“State action immunity is an affirmative defense, and the defendant has the burden of establishing its eligibility for that defense.”).

Graham v. Worthington

259 Iowa 845 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Nov 15, 1966

and render judgment; and generally providing for the practice and procedure to establish liability of the state on tort claims.” … By the terms of the Act itself, claims based on contract are clearly excluded. Sections 25A.2, 25A.3 and 25A.14.

State v. Ruble

372 N.W.2d 216 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 31, 1985

“Abuse of discretion is shown only when it is demonstrated that such discretion was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” … On cross-examination, defense counsel attempted to establish that Simeon had an interest in furnishing evidence favorable to the State in order to avoid criminal charges.

Perkins v. Board of Supervisors

636 N.W.2d 58 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Nov 15, 2001

The amendment clearly exempts the Association from the Ordinance during the five days of the fair. … The purpose of the Privileges and Immunities Clause is to prevent the state from denying its citizens the privileges and immunities of national citizenship.

Lawrence v. Thomas

84 Iowa 362 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 28, 1892

It is clearly within section 2513, which provides, that “In all other cases except in 'this code otherwise provided, the plaintiff must prosecute his action by ordinary proceedings.” … Each party affirms his or her fitness for the appointment, and each holds the burden of establishing that affirmation.

Krystal Wagner, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen v. State of Iowa and William L. Spece a/k/a Bill L. Spece

Supreme Court of Iowa · Dec 31, 2020

In 2018, in Baldwin I, we addressed whether a qualified immunity defense was available for a direct constitutional claim under article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. Id. at 260–61. … First, and most importantly, the established view in 1974 was that the State was immune from constitutional tort claims.

Harden v. State

434 N.W.2d 881 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 25, 1989

First, section 25A.13 establishes a two-year statute of limitations, and not a sixty-day notice requirement. … In such claims, immunity is still the rule. Law suits may be maintained only to the extent that immunity has been expressly waived by the legislature.

Hansen v. City of Audubon

378 N.W.2d 903 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Dec 18, 1985

We recently summarized, and need not repeat, long-established principles which allow tort liability to be imposed upon municipalities that provide drains and sewers. Scholbrock v. … We reserve ruling upon issues concerning error preservation and the burden of pleading and proving statutory immunity of a municipality until we are presented a case in which these issues are more clearly advanced.

Quad City Bank & Trust v. Jim Kircher & Associates, P.C.

804 N.W.2d 83 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Sep 23, 2011

The record clearly establishes the court’s ruling on the motion in limine declared that Bolt’s testimony concerning generally accepted CPA auditing standards, whether Kircher breached those standards, and causation, was … This exchange clearly establishes the court left open the question of whether QCBT could introduce Bolt’s testimony as to other issues, including his analysis of the work papers, at trial.

Young v. City of Des Moines

262 N.W.2d 612 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Feb 22, 1978

Today liability is the rule, immunity the exception. … Consequently, failure to include a like immunity for municipal corporations can scarcely be attributed to inadvertence or oversight.

Davidson v. Henry L. Doherty & Co.

214 Iowa 739 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Mar 8, 1932

Similarly, there are statutes such as the one under consideration, where a non-resident voluntarily comes within the state and establishes an office or agency and transacts business, and the service of summons is made by … (Ind.) 186, the Supreme Court of Indiana considered a statute almost identical in language (and clearly so in effect) with ours. The defendants were non-residents.

Cox v. State

686 N.W.2d 209 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Sep 1, 2004

Section 663A.1(5) clearly envisions that a wrongfully imprisoned person may pursue a claim for negligence related to the wrongful imprisonment under the State Tort Claims Act in some instances even though a judgment has been … In a case of this nature, a wrongfully imprisoned person has a choice to bring an action under chapter 663A, without having to establish negligence or other wrongful conduct, or to proceed under the Tort Claims Act based

State v. Niccum

190 N.W.2d 815 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Oct 13, 1971

He testified he had been promised immunity. … District Court, 213 Iowa at 831 , 238 N.W. at 294 : “If the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable or unrea *825 sonable, if its action clearly amounts to a denial of justice, if clearly against justice

Moore v. Murphy

254 Iowa 969 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Feb 12, 1963

It clearly distinguishes between *761 acts of nonfeasance and acts of misfeasance as they effect the personal liability of an employee or agent, and is the basis for the rule announced by the trial court quoted above. … With such a wide trend established by these and other decisions those who rely on immunity as a defense must realize our court-made doctrine of governmental immunity may be subjected to a re-examination in the near future

Rocky Baker Vs. Joshua Shields And Barton Shields

Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 19, 2009

As a result, the defendants argue that the legislature clearly intended to provide broader immunity than that advocated by the plaintiff. … Like “manifest intent,” repugnant is a strong term and presents a high hurdle for a party challenging application of a legislatively-established definition.