Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs’ attorney filed two board claim forms with a state appeals board on behalf of Plaintiffs, signing their names and his own. The attorney did not attach any document showing he had power of attorney. The board rejected Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs then filed their claim in district court. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims on the ground that their attorney signed the forms on their behalf. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a claimant presents a claim when the board receives a writing that discloses the amount of damages claimed and generally describes the legal theories asserted against the State; and (2) the district court had jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ claims. View "Segura v. State" on Justia Law

In this ongoing civil litigation, the Supreme Court decided two prior appeals, referred to as Mueller I and Mueller II. After procedendo issued in Mueller II, Plaintiffs were successful in persuading the district court to proceed with an antitrust claim they had previously stipulated was not included in their fourth amended petition. Defendant filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court sustained the writ of certiorari, holding that the district court’s summary judgment in Mueller II, and the Court’s subsequent decision affirming that judgment without any remand, ended this civil action such that a rule-of-reason claim against Defendant can only be pursued in a separate lawsuit. View "Wellmark, Inc. v. Iowa District Court for Polk County" on Justia Law

Father filed a petition seeking a permanent injunction precluding communication and contact between his minor children and their former softball coach. The district court granted a permanent injunction against the former coach that prevented him from contacting or communicating with the children but allowed him to attend certain extracurricular activities and to be present in the home of the children’s mother. The district court also ordered that the ruling granting permanent injunctive relief be sealed and not be disseminated. Father filed a motion requesting that the district court allow for the redissemination of the ruling and expand the terms of the permanent injunction. The district court denied the motion but allowed redissemination of the terms of the permanent injunction. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision with regard to the terms of the injunction and remanded for further proceedings, holding (1) because no hearing was conducted pursuant to the Iowa Open Records Act in support of the district court conclusion that the permanent injunction be sealed, the case must be remanded for a hearing regarding redissemination of the ruling granting permanent injunctive relief consistent with the requirements of the Act; and (2) the terms of the permanent injunction should not be expanded. View "In re Petition of Kent Langholz" on Justia Law

Petitioner received a one-year driver’s license revocation and suspension for failure to submit to chemical testing. The Department of Transportation (DOT) affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Petitioner sought judicial review of the DOT’s ruling. On the thirtieth day after the DOT issued its final decision, the law firm representing Petitioner electronically submitted a petition for judicial review that was received by the Iowa Judicial Branch electronic data management system (EDMS). The next morning, the clerk’s office returned the petition because Petitioner’s address was missing from the electronic cover sheet and the filing had not been described as a “civil-administrative appeal” on that same cover sheet. The law firm resubmitted the petition after correcting the errors. Upon the motion of the DOT, however, the district court dismissed the petition as untimely because it was one day late. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, for purposes of meeting a deadline, a filing may relate back to the original date it was received by the EDMS when the filing party demonstrates certain conditions are met. Remanded. View "Jacobs v. Iowa Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

Petitioners petitioned for judicial review of a decision by the City Development Board approving the annexation of certain land. The district court affirmed. Petitioners filed a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time to appeal, claiming that the annexation was improper. The Board filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely filed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the time to file a notice of appeal in an electronically filed case begins on the day the notice of filing is electronically submitted or on the day the court order from which the appeal is taken has been electronically filed. The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal, holding (1) the notice of appeal from a final judgment or order of the district court must be filed within thirty days of the date the judgment or order was electronically filed, rather than the date of the notice of filing; and (2) the notice of appeal in this case was untimely filed. View "Concerned Citizens of Southeast Polk Sch. Dist. v. City Dev. Bd. of Iowa" on Justia Law

Jim Book, the owner of an auto repair shop in Iowa, bought from an Iowa retailer four Treadstone tires manufactured in China by Doublestar Dongfeng Tyre Company, Ltd. Jim’s son, Dylan Book, was airing up one of the tires when it exploded, causing severe and permanent injuries. Dylan, through his mother, filed a products-liability action in Iowa seeking recovery from Doublestar and Voma Tire Corporation, a national tire distributor that sold several of Doublestar’s tires. Doublestar moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Federal Constitution permits the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a high-volume, foreign manufacturer, such as Doublestar, whose allegedly dangerous product purchased in Iowa injured a resident here. View "Book v. Voma Tire Corp." on Justia Law

An Iowa plaintiff sued a nonresident corporation (Defendant) for unfair competition and civil conspiracy. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, concluding that general jurisdiction was established because Defendant’s passive website held Defendant out as having a manufacturing facility in Sioux Center, Iowa. In fact, the Sioux Center facility was owned and operated by a separate Iowa defendant that supplied the product to Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss but on an alternative ground, holding (1) the district court erred by exercising general jurisdiction over Defendant based solely on the inaccurate statement on Defendant’s website, as there was no proof that Defendant was “essentially at home” in Iowa to establish general jurisdiction; but (2) the totality of Defendant’s contacts with Iowa were sufficient to subject it to specific jurisdiction on claims related to those contacts. View "Sioux Pharm, Inc. v. Summit Nutritionals Int’l, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked as a service dog trainer but was not disabled. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Drake University Law School, where she was a student, alleging that Drake barred her from bringing with her a dog she was training into the classroom and to another event in violation of Iowa Code 216C.11(2). The district court granted Drake’s motion to dismiss after applying the four-factor test adopted from Cort v. Ash for determining whether an Iowa statute provides an implied private right of action, concluding that section 216C.11(2) creates no private enforcement action. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that, under an application of the Cort factors, section 216C.11(2) does not provide a service dog trainer with a private right to sue. View "Shumate v. Drake Univ." on Justia Law