Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with and pled guilty to criminal transmission of HIV in violation of Iowa Code 709C.1. The district court accepted the plea, sentenced Defendant to twenty-five years suspended and placed Defendant on probation for five years. Defendant subsequently filed an application for postconviction relief, claiming that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance for allowing him to plead guilty, by failing to challenge the factual basis of the plea, and failing to complete a proper investigation before the plea hearing. The district court denied the application, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the guilty plea record did not contain a factual basis to support the plea, and the court in this case could not use the rule of judicial notice to establish the factual basis in the guilty plea record. Remanded. View "Rhoades v. State" on Justia Law

Grain Processing Corporation (GPC) operated a local corn wet milling facility in Muscatine. Plaintiffs, eight individuals who resided within one and one-half miles of GPC’s facility, filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated Muscatine residents, claiming that GPC’s operations caused harmful pollutants and noxious odors to invade their land. Plaintiffs based their claims on common law and statutory nuisance and the common-law torts of trespass and negligence. GPC filed a motion for summary judgment prior to class certification, claiming (1) Plaintiffs’ common law and statutory claims were preempted by the Federal Clean Air Act; (2) alternatively, the common law claims were preempted by the state statutory companion to the CAA; and (3) the issues raised by Plaintiffs were political questions. The district court granted summary judgment for GPC. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiffs’ claims (1) were not preempted by the CAA; (2) were not preempted by Iowa Code 455B; and (3) were not subject to dismissal by operation of the political question doctrine. View "Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of third-degree sexual abuse. Six years later, the Supreme Court overturned Defendant's conviction and sentence and remanded for a new trial. The second trial resulted in Defendant's acquittal. Defendant subsequently filed an application to be declared a wrongfully imprisoned individual pursuant to Iowa Code 663A.1. The district court granted the application. The State appealed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) Defendant was eligible to bring a wrongful imprisonment claim when he was acquitted on retrial; (2) the district court erred by failing to consider testimony that had been presented at Defendant's two criminal trials in making the wrongful imprisonment determination, even though the State did not show the witnesses were no longer available; and (3) while substantial evidence supported the district court's finding of innocence on the existing record, a remand was necessary for the court to consider the full record, including the prior testimony.View "State v. DeSimone" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the workers’ compensation commissioner, filed an amended petition against the State and individual defendants named in their official and individual capacities. Plaintiff’s claims stemmed from his refusal to resign upon the Governor-elect’s demand for resignation and Plaintiff's subsequent reduction in salary. The attorney general provided a certification certifying that the individual defendants were acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the allegations contained in the amended petition, and therefore, certain immunities applied to various counts of the petition. The district court dismissed those counts alleging that the individual defendants acted outside the scope of their employment, concluding that the attorney general’s certification was applicable to all of Plaintiff’s claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Iowa Tort Claims Act applies only to torts committed by state employees when acting within the scope of their employment; and (2) therefore, the attorney general’s certification was not applicable to Plaintiff’s common law claims alleging that the individual defendants acted outside the scope of their employment. Remanded. View "Godfrey v. State " on Justia Law

The Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board filed a complaint against Attorney Doe based on sexual misconduct allegations by the attorney's client, Jane Doe. The Grievance Commission of the Iowa Supreme Court scheduled a hearing on the matter. Jane's attorney requested a continuance of the scheduled hearing so that she could be present when Jane testified before the Commission. The Commission President quashed Jane's attorney's appearance and denied her request for a continuance, stating that witnesses testifying before the Commission were not entitled to have an attorney present during the proceedings and that that absence of Jane's attorney from the hearing would cause no unfairness to Jane. The Supreme Court reversed the Commission's order, holding that a person called upon to be a witness before the Commission may be represented by counsel for the limited purpose of protecting rights personal to the witness in the proceeding.View "Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Attorney Doe No. 762" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of operating while intoxicated, second offense. Defendant appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the breath-test result obtained after his arrest, arguing that he had been denied his statutory right to an independent chemical test. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the district court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s statutory right to an independent chemical test was violated when he made statements that could be reasonably construed as a request for an independent test under Iowa Code 321J.11 but law enforcement denied his request, and (2) the error was not harmless. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Lukins" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with and found guilty of driving under revocation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court’s admission of a certified abstract of his driving record and affidavits of the mailing of suspension notices violated his rights under the Confrontation Clauses of the United States and Iowa Constitutions. The court of appeals concluded that the admission of the disputed documents did not violate the Confrontation Clauses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the admission of the certified abstract of Defendant’s driving record did not violate the Confrontation Clauses; and (2) the admission of the affidavits of the mailing of suspension notices violated the Confrontation Clauses, but their admission into evidence was harmless error. View "State v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendants, county and municipal officials, alleging that he was wrongfully assaulted and arrested by certain law enforcement officers and deputies. The district court concluded that Defendants were entitled to immunity because they were acting on behalf of the state in an official capacity and that the Iowa Tort Claims Act (ITCA) barred Plaintiff's claims for assault, battery, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that any immunity conferred by the ITCA did not protect Defendants from being sued under the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act (IMTCA), which applies to political subdivisions and their employees, and that the IMTCA does not bar claims for assault, battery, false arrest, and malicious prosecution. Remanded.View "Thomas v. Gavin" on Justia Law

Police officers stopped Defendant’s vehicle after discovering that the vehicle’s license plate frame covered up the county name on the license plate, which the officers believed violated Iowa Code 321.37(3). As a result of the stop, Defendant was charged with possession with intent to deliver crack cocaine, a drug tax stamp violation, and driving under suspension. A district court judge denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, concluding that the license plate frame violation gave no reason to stop Defendant but that the stop was lawful based on a reasonable suspicion of drug dealing. A different judge who presided at trial upheld the stop based on the license plate violation alone. After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty as charged. The court of appeals affirmed, which held that the traffic stop was lawful based on reasonable suspicion of drug dealing without deciding the license plate issue. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction without reaching the issue of whether the traffic stop was lawful based on reasonable suspicion of drug dealing, holding that a license plate frame that covers up the county name violates Iowa Code 321.37(3) and provides a valid basis for a traffic stop. View "State v. Harrison" on Justia Law

After taking self-care leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Plaintiff was terminated from her employment with the State. A jury found the State terminated Plaintiff in violation of her rights under the FMLA. The district court awarded Plaintiff money damages and ordered the State to reinstate Plaintiff to her former position. The State appealed and successfully requested a stay of Plaintiff’s reinstatement pending the outcome of the appeal. The Supreme Court subsequently held that sovereign immunity precluded Plaintiff’s judgment for money damages against the State. On remand, the district court once again ordered Plaintiff reinstated and awarded lost wages and benefits from the date of the original reinstatement order, concluding that the State had waived its sovereign immunity by seeking a stay of the reinstatement order and promising to pay Plaintiff’s interim wages and benefits if the Court affirmed the original order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff’s pleadings were sufficient to preserve her right to Ex parte Young remedies, and the parties litigated the reinstatement remedy by consent; and (2) the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not bar an award of wages and benefits for the period during which a reinstatement order was stayed. View "Lee v. State" on Justia Law