Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After Appellant's emergency hospitalization, a district court concluded that B.B. was seriously mentally impaired. Appellant was subsequently involuntarily committed. During the pendency of the appeal, Appellant was released to outpatient treatment at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC). Because the court file indicated Appellant was no longer a patient at UNMC, the State filed a motion to discharge and terminate the proceedings. The district court granted the motion, terminated the proceedings, and discharged Appellant from court-ordered treatment and placement. At issue on appeal was whether Appellant's appeal was moot when Appellant had been released and the proceedings terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding (1) this appeal was not moot, as a person adjudicated seriously mentally impaired and involuntarily committed suffers adverse collateral consequences; and (2) substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Appellant was seriously mentally impaired. View "In re B.B." on Justia Law

Two petitions were filed alleging that fifteen-year-old A.K. was a delinquent child for committing three counts of sexual abuse in the second degree and four counts of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse involving three different children. After a hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated A.K. a delinquent on all seven counts. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that A.K. committed three acts of sexual abuse in the second degree and three acts that would constitute assaults with intent to commit sexual abuse; but (2) the State did not meet its burden to prove A.K. committed one count of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse. View "In re A.K." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with second-degree sexual abuse and child endangerment causing bodily injury after he admitted to sexually abusing a seventeen-month-old. Defendant moved to suppress his confession, claiming it was involuntary because the detective made promises of helping Defendant if he admitted to the crime. The district court denied the motion, holding that a promise to get help for a defendant does not constitute a promise of leniency. Defendant was found guilty of the charges. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the detective's statements about getting Defendant help were not impermissible promises of leniency. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals, reversed the judgment of the district court, and remanded the case for a new trial on both counts, holding (1) the interrogation of Defendant crossed the line into an impermissible promise of leniency, rendering the confession that followed inadmissible; and (2) the error was not harmless. View "State v. Howard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff worked for over ten years for Dentist. When Dentist's wife found out that her husband and Plaintiff often texted each other, she demanded that he terminate Plaintiff's employment. Dentist subsequently terminated Plaintiff's employment. Plaintiff brought this action against Dentist, alleging that Dentist discriminated against her on the basis of sex. The district court granted summary judgment for Dentist, finding that Plaintiff was not fired because of her gender but because she was a threat to Dentist's marriage. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Dentist's conduct here did not amount to unlawful sex discrimination in violation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act. View "Nelson v. Knight" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of second-degree burglary, operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, second offense. Defendant appealed his burglary conviction. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the appellate court's decision holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the second-degree burglary conviction; (2) vacated the appellate court's decision with respect to Defendant's effectiveness of counsel claims, leaving all three ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims for postconviction relief proceedings; and (3) affirmed Defendant's convictions for operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. View "State v. Clay" on Justia Law

Appellant, an ALJ within the Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC), presided over the hearing of an inmate charged with assaulting a corrections officer. Appellant found the inmate guilty of assault. The Office of Citizens' Aide/Ombudsman (Ombudsman) subsequently launched an investigation into Appellant's ruling and subpoenaed her for deposition testimony. Appellant argued that she could assert the mental-process privilege in refusing to answer questions about her decision. The Ombudsman filed an action to enforce the subpoena. The district court ruled the mental-process privilege would not apply to limit deposition testimony in the Ombudsman's investigation, as opposed to a judicial proceeding, and entered an order compelling Appellant's deposition. Appellant and IDOC appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the mental-process privilege is available to IDOC ALJs in an Ombudsman investigation; but (2) the Ombudsman made a sufficient showing to overcome the privilege. View "Office of Citizens' Aide/Ombudsman v. Edwards" on Justia Law

Defendant received suspended sentences for drug offenses and two years of probation. He was incarcerated after his probation was revoked. At issue on appeal was whether an offender accrues earned time under Iowa Code 903A.2 while on supervised probation before his incarceration. Defendant contended the Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC) erroneously withheld his earned-time credit for the probationary period. IDOC argued earned-time credits are only earned while the offender is incarcerated. The district court denied earned-time credit for the time Defendant spent on supervised probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in ruling IDOC correctly calculated Defendant's discharge date because earned-time credits are only earned while the offender is incarcerated. View "State v. Allensworth" on Justia Law

This case involved a district court's denial of coverage under a fire insurance policy. A husband and wife had an insurance policy on their home. The policy included an intentional loss exclusion, voiding coverage when any insured intentionally causes a loss or damage. The district court denied coverage because the husband attempted suicide by pouring gasoline on himself and his home and lit himself on fire. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a coinsured who sets fire to the insured dwelling in order to commit suicide has the requisite intent to "cause a loss" under the policy; (2) under the language of the policy, the innocent coinsured spouse, who did not participate in the intentional acts of the other coinsured, cannot recover due to the intentional loss exclusion; and (3) the innocent coinsured cannot recover under the recently amended Iowa standard fire policy in Iowa Code 515.109. View "Postell v. Am. Family Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs purchased a home along the Cedar River. At the time, they were told, incorrectly, that the property was not in a special flood hazard area and that flood insurance would not be required as a condition of their loan. Plaintiffs received the same erroneous information when they refinanced their loan to pay for remodeling. Years later, their loan servicer was advised that the property actually was in a special flood hazard area. However, this information was not passed along to Plaintiffs until after their home had flooded and it was too late to buy flood insurance. Plaintiffs brought suit against the lender as well as the loan servicer. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants. The Supreme Court (1) reversed in part, finding a claim could potentially exist based on Restatement (Second) of Torts, 551(2); and (2) affirmed the remainder of the district court's judgment. Remanded. View "Bagelmann v. First Nat'l Bank" on Justia Law

In 1995, Appellant was convicted of first-degree armed robbery. In 2011, the governor commuted Appellant's sentence. Thereafter, Appellant filed an application for postconviction relief seeking recalculation of his earned time to comply with the governor's commutation of the mandatory minimum portion of his sentence. Specifically, Appellant contended that with the mandatory minimum portion of his sentence removed he was entitled to accumulate earned time at a faster rate than had been available to him under the original sentence, which included a mandatory minimum term of incarceration. If his earned time were calculated at the accelerated rate, Appellant contended he would be entitled to an immediate release. The district court denied his application. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's determination that the governor's commutation order did not entitle Appellant to an immediate discharge; but (2) reversed the part of the district court's ruling that the commutation had no effect on the rate of Appellant's accumulation of earned time and the resulting tentative discharge, as the legal effect of the governor's commutation order changed the rate at which Appellant could accumulate earned time from the date of the commutation forward. Remanded. View "Lowery v. State" on Justia Law