Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with murder in the first degree. Defendant provided notice he would be relying on the defense of insanity to the charge. The jury rejected the insanity defense and found Defendant guilty of first-degree murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole and ordered him to pay restitution for his attorney and expert witness fees. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction and restitution orders. Defendant appealed, claiming (1) the instructions given by the district court did not accurately define insanity, and (2) his own instruction should have been given. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the instructions given by the district court, when read as a whole, fairly and accurately advised the jury of the legal standard it was to apply to Defendant's insanity defense; and (2) due process under the Iowa Constitution does not require the district court to inform the jury of the consequences of a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict under the facts of this case. View "State v. Becker " on Justia Law

Tenant brought claims against her landlord, the City of Dubuque, and a City official (Defendants), asserting that they unlawfully caused her eviction from her apartment. Tenant alleged, among other things, that the conduct of Defendants violated a number of her statutory rights under the Iowa Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (IURLTA). To the extent the Dubuque ordinance authorized the action of Defendants, Tenant argued the ordinance was preempted by the IURLTA. The district court concluded that Tenant was entitled to the return of her security deposit but denied all other relief. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the ordinance was not preempted by the IURLTA and there was no violation of federal law in this case; (2) the ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague and any procedural due process claim was moot; (3) the landlord violated the IURLTA when he removed the belongings of Tenant from the apartment, and landlord's withholding of Tenant's security deposit was a bad faith violation of IURLTA. Remanded. View "Lewis v. Jaeger" on Justia Law

In 2007, two University of Iowa football players were accused of sexually assaulting another student in a campus dorm room. The incident led to criminal charges, internal actions by the University, an external criticism of the University. The incident also led to the present lawsuit, which concerned Open Records Act requests that the Iowa City Press-Citizen served on the University. Dissatisfied with the University's initial response to those requests, the Press-Citizen filed suit. The lawsuit resulted in more documents being produced and others being submitted for in camera review by the district court. The court then ordered additional documents produced, in some instances with redactions. The University appealed that order in part. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment in part, holding that the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act prohibited the disclosure of the remaining documents, including even redacted versions of "education records" where the identity of the student was known to the recipient. View "Press-Citizen Co. v. Univ. of Iowa" on Justia Law

In this breach of contract case, the Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial based on several rulings by the district court that Defendant claimed materially affected his rights and denied him a fair trial. The district court refused Defendant's request to exclude exhibits disclosed by Plaintiff the day before trial in violation of the district court's pretrial scheduling order. Additionally, the district court refused the request to declare a mistrial when Plaintiff testified to certain matters in violation of the district court's stipulated ruling on a motion in limine and denied Defendant's motion for a directed verdict. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial because it concluded the district court abused its discretion in admitting the exhibits into evidence. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the district court, holding that Defendant had not shown the district court committed any error in its decisions during the trial that substantially prejudiced Defendant's rights to a fair trial. Thus, Defendant was not entitled to a new trial. View "Fry v. Blauvelt " on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to review a summary judgment ruling dismissing a wrongful death action because it was commenced later than is allowed under Iowa Code 614.1(9), a statute of repose limiting the time allowed for commencing medical negligence cases. Plaintiffs contended their case should not have been dismissed because Defendants fraudulently concealed the fact that a tissue specimen harvested from Plaintiffs' decedent more than six years before the filing of this action was not evaluated by a board-certified pathologist. In the alternative, Plaintiff contended the continuum-of-negligent-treatment doctrine precluded the summary dismissal of this case notwithstanding the statute of repose. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 614.1(9) in this case operated to extinguish the decedent's cause of action even before she and her husband knew it had accrued; and (2) under the the circumstances, the fraudulent-concealment doctrine and the continuum-of-negligent-treatment doctrine did not preserve Plaintiffs' causes of action, and section 614.1(9) denied Plaintiffs a remedy for negligent acts or omissions occurring more than six years prior to the commencement of this action. View "Estate of Anderson v. Iowa Dermatology Clinic, PLC" on Justia Law

In this case the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether Iowa's workers' compensation statute allows a claimant to recover healing period benefits - after he had reached maximum medical improvement and returned to substantially similar work following a work-related injury - for a period of approximately thirteen weeks of postsurgical convalescence during which he was unable to work. The workers' compensation commission awarded such benefits, and the district court affirmed. The court of appeals reversed on the ground that Iowa Code 85.34(1) did not authorize the benefits under the circumstances of this case. The Supreme Court vacated in part the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the district court's judgment affirming the award, holding that section 85.34(1) did authorize an award of healing period benefits in this case. View "Waldinger Corp. v. Mettler" on Justia Law

Following his sentencing to consecutive prison terms totaling thirty-five years, Defendant asked the Supreme Court to review the district court's determinations that the written entry of the verdict was proper, that a fork is a dangerous weapon, and that the State did not commit a Brady violation or fail to disclose newly discovered evidence, among others. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the court of appeals, holding (1) the State did not commit a Brady violation; and (2) Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.17(2) requires a trial court to announce the verdict in a recorded proceeding in open court following a bench trial, and the district court in this case erred by not announcing the verdict in a recorded proceeding in open court. The Court found, however, that the district court cured its error and substantially complied with Rule 2.17(2) such that no remand was required. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was (1) whether a life insurance agent owes a duty of care to the intended beneficiary of a life insurance policy, and (2) whether a life insurance agent can be liable for negligent misrepresentation when he provides information to the insured and the intended beneficiary regarding the beneficiary designation listed on the life insurance policy. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the agent. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a life insurance agent owes a duty of care to an intended beneficiary of a life insurance policy; (2) a life insurance agent can be liable for negligent misrepresentation; and (3) genuine issues of material fact existed in this case, and therefore, summary judgment should not have been granted. Remanded. View "Pitts v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

In this case the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the district court erred in admitting exhibits directed to the issue of fault in a pharmacy malpractice action that were not disclosed during the pretrial discovery. Plaintiff appealed the district court's adverse ruling. The court of appeals found the district court abused its discretion by not excluding the evidence as a sanction for violating both the pretrial order of the district court to disclose all exhibits prior to trial and the spirit and purpose of the discovery rules. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the district court, holding (1) the pharmacy had a duty to disclose the newly discovered evidence prior to trial by supplementing its answers to interrogatories; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the request to exclude the evidence as a sanction, as the trial court pursued a reasonable course of action. View "Whitley v. C.R. Pharmacy Serv., Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this appeal was whether to judicially invalidate an insurance contract requirement that the insured file her lawsuit for underinsured motorist coverage (UIM) within two years of her auto accident. Plaintiff argued the deadline was unenforceable because, although she was still experiencing pain two years after the accident, only later did she discover the full extent of her injuries and realize her claim exceeded the other driver's liability limits. Plaintiff filed this UIM action against her insurer (Defendant) nearly six years after the accident. The district court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment enforcing the contractual deadline as reasonable. The court of appeals reversed, holding the two-year limitation period was unreasonable under the circumstances. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the district court, holding that the two-year UIM insurance policy deadline was enforceable as a matter of law because it matched the two-year statute of limitations in Iowa Code 614.1(2) for personal injury actions. View "Robinson v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law