Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that "repowering" a wind plant, or replacing a substantial proportion of its parts, does not change the analysis for valuing wind plants for property tax purposes under Iowa Code 427B.26, holding that the district court did not err.Story County Wind, LLC (SCW) owned a wind energy conversion property. In 2019, a repowering project began for the wind plants. Because the Story County Assessor continued to value and assess the wind plants as before, in 2021, SCW filed a protest seeking to modify the assessment. The Board declined to modify the assessment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under section 427B.26, repowering a wind plant by replacing component parts does not charge the plants' valuation for property tax purposes. View "Story County Wind, LLC v. Story County Bd. of Review" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants and dismissing Plaintiff's various legal theories of direct damages liability under the Iowa Constitution, holding that Godfrey v. State, 898 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa 2017), is hereby overruled.Plaintiff, a garbage truck driver, was stopped on a busy high by a Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) officer for a cracked windshield. During the interaction, Plaintiff was arrested and later charged with interference with legal acts. He was later acquitted of the charge, and subsequently sued the State and the IDOT officer, arguing that his passive noncooperation did not give the officer probable cause to arrest him. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Plaintiff appealed and asked the Court to endorse his constitutional tort claim under Godfrey. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) this Court overrules Godfrey and restores the law as it existed before 2017; and (2) this Court no longer recognizes a standalone cause of action for money damages. View "Burnett v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court concluding that the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) was entitled to a detailed accounting and all of the residual funds The Center for Special Needs Trust Administration, Inc. had retained from Steven Muller's trust subaccount, holding that the district court erred.The Center for Special Needs Trust Administration, Inc. acted as trustee over a pooled special needs trust subaccount for the benefit of Muller. After Muller died, the Center retained all residual funds in his trust subaccount. DHS sought judicial intervention to obtain a detailed accounting of the retained funds. The district court decided in favor of DHS and ordered the Center to pay DHS all of the funds it had retained from the subaccount. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Center provided an adequate accounting, and therefore, the district court lacked authority to grant the relief it provided to remedy the Center's alleged failure to account for the retained funds. View "In re Medical Assistance Pooled Special Needs Trust of Steven Muller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment for the Center for Special Needs Trust Administration, Inc., as trustee of a polled special needs trust held for the benefit of Scott Hewitt, and dismissing this action brought by the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) claiming it was entitled to a detailed accounting, holding that the trustee provided an adequate accounting.Title XIX of the Social Security Act required that the funds remaining in Hewitt's trust subaccount when he died must first be used to reimburse the state for its Medicaid expenditures. DHS filed a petition to invoke jurisdiction over the irrevocable trust, claiming that it was entitled to a detailed accounting to ensure that the funds retained by by the pooled special needs trust were used for a proper purpose. The district court granted summary judgment for the Center, concluding that no further accounting was required absent evidence that the Center breached its duties as trustee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that DHS was not entitled to relief on its claims of error. View "In re Medical Assistance Pooled Special Needs Trust Of Scott Hewitt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition for judicial review of an order of the Iowa Utilities Board approving a regulated public utility's emissions plan and budget, holding that the Board erred in failing to consider certain intervenors' evidence in determining whether the "Emissions Plan and Budget" (EPB) met the statutory requirements.The utility submitted an EPB - its initial plan and budget and subsequent updates - requesting approval for operations and maintenance expenditures associated with emissions controls previously approved at four coal-fueled power plants. The Board granted several motions to intervene in the contested case proceeding, including three environmental parties. Prior to the contested case hearing, the Board approved the utility's EPB. The environmental parties petitioned for judicial review, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board erred in rejecting the evidence brought by the intervening parties that the retirement of coal-fueled electric power generated facilities was more cost effective than the utility's plan and budget as outside the scope of Iowa Code 476.6 and thus not relevant. View "Environmental Law & Policy Center v. Iowa Utilities Bd." on Justia Law

In this action concerning a lease renewal for property on which a cell tower was built the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court and the court of appeals in favor of a cell phone service company and dismissing this action brought by property owners, holding that there was no error.In 1988, the cell phone company entered into a thirty-year lease of the subject property that included a thirty-year renewal option. In 2018, when the lease came up for renewal, the rent was substantially below market, and the company gave written notice of renewal to the property owners. Because the company did not immediately pay the renewal rent the property owners brought suit arguing that the option had not been validly exercised. The district court granted judgment for the cell phone company, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the property owners were not entitled to relief on their allegations of error. View "Pitz v. U.S. Cellular Operating Co. of Dubuque" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of one count each of willful injury and intimidation with a deadly weapon, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss because the State charged him more than one year after the three-year statute-of-limitations period was over. In response, the State argued that the district court correctly determined that the statute of limitations tolled between May 25, 2016 and September 21, 2020. The Supreme Court agreed with the State, holding that the district court correctly found that the statute of limitations tolled during the relevant period because Defendant was not publicly resident in Iowa. View "State v. Boone" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded this case for resentencing, holding that the district court imposed an illegal sentence by choosing not to impose the requirements set forth in Iowa Code 124.401(5)(f).Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, third or subsequent offense, a class D felony, in violation of section 124.401(5). At the sentencing hearing, Defendant asked that he be sentenced to a fine. The State responded that a fine alone would be an illegal sentence under Iowa Code 901.5. The district court orally sentenced Defendant to the minimum fine only. The State filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence, holding that the district court's fine-only sentence was illegal because, in choosing not to impose probation subject to random drug testing and at least a suspended sentence of the minimum forty-eight-hour term of imprisonment required under section 124.401(5)(f), the sentence lacked statutory authorization. View "State v. Iowa District Court for Woodbury County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of sexual abuse in the third degree, holding that Defendant was not entitled to reversal of his convictions on his allegations of error.The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions but concluded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a nunc pro tunc order attempting to correct Defendant's sentence and remanding the case for the district court to correct the sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Defendant was previously convicted of an act of sexual abuse for purposes of the sentencing enhancement; (2) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's challenge brought under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); and (3) any error in the court's decision to excuse a juror for cause did not prejudice Defendant. View "State v. Booker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified the judgment of the district court denying Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims of open records violations, holding that Iowa's Open Records Act, Iowa Code chapter 22, may permit Plaintiffs to pursue claims based on untimeliness and that the district court did not err in granting Defendants' motion to dismiss.In 2020 and 2021, Plaintiffs requested public records from Defendants. Plaintiffs brought this suit in December 2021, and in January 2022, Defendants provided responsive records. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the timeliness claims were moot. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) most of the claims concerning production of already-produced records were moot; and (2) with some qualifications, Plaintiffs could pursue claims that Defendants violated chapter 22 through delays in responding to Plaintiffs' open records requests. View "Belin v. Reynolds" on Justia Law