Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Defendants for wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and age discrimination, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment on all claims.Plaintiff, an at-will employee, was promptly fired after he texted his plant manager "FUCK You!" and "Believe who and what you want" following the manager's criticism of his job performance. In response to Plaintiff's complaint, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff was lawfully fired for insubordination. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court modified the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework for summary judgment on discrimination claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act to align with the causation standard at trial and adopted and applied the good-faith "honest believe rule" to affirm Defendant's decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment for insubordination. View "Feeback v. Swift Pork Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.In 2019, police charged Defendant with murder in the first degree for a murder committed in 1979. The charges were based on the results of a DNA test that was performed on a drinking straw that the police retrieved from an eating establishment where Defendant had eaten. A jury found Defendant guilty and sentenced him to prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence about DNA that police found on the straw that Defendant discarded or to analyze DNA attached to the straw; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to give an instruction regarding federal sentencing law; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction. View "State v. Burns" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the district court's dismissal of the medical malpractice action brought by the Estate of Roberta Butterfield against Chautauqua Guest Home, Inc., a nursing home, holding that the Estate was not required to serve a certificate of merit affidavit on Chautauqua in this case.While the Estate brought its action it did not serve a certificate of merit on Chautauqua. Chautauqua filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it with prejudice under Iowa Code 147.140. The district court granted the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Estate's claims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the certificate of merit requirement set forth in section 147.140 does not apply to plaintiffs who need experts solely for causation, as opposed to the standard of care or breach; and (2) remand was required to establish which of the Estate's claims survived the failure to file the certificate of merit. View "Estate of Butterfield v. Chautauqua Guest Home, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Iowa Code 35C.8, an exception to the veterans preference statute that applies to veterans who "hold[] a strictly confidential relation to the appointing officer" does not apply unless the veteran had a direct reporting relationship with the appointing officer.At issue before the Supreme Court was whether to read the exception to apply to veterans who have no direct relationship with "the appointing officer" or to read it more narrowly, as it did in Ervin v. Triplett, to not apply to veterans who worked in jobs that require "skill, judgment, trust, and confidence." 18 N.W.2d 599, 602 (Iowa 1945). The Supreme Court held that Ervin's narrow reading was the better approach, thus preventing the exception from "swallowing" the veterans preference by largely confining it to jobs that require "no discretion or responsibility." The Court thus vacated the decision of the court of appeals and reversed the district court's denial of a petition for writ of certiorari, holding that the district court erred in finding that the exception applied to Petitioner, who did not report to the "appointing officer." View "Copeland v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court in this appeal concerning attorney fees, holding that the court abused its discretion in ordering an eighty-nine-year-old protected person under a conservatorship to pay for two sets of attorneys to litigate the same position in the same litigation.At issue in this contentious intrafamily litigation was whether the trustee of an individual retirement account (IRA) was entitled to recover more than $200,000 in attorney fees from the assets of the IRA for prevailing in its view of who was the property beneficiary of the account. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's conclusion that fees were potentially recoverable and that $200,000 was a reasonable sum; but (2) the district court abused its discretion in ordering Joan Bittner, the sole beneficiary of the IRA who was under a conservatorship, to pay for both her own and the trustee's attorneys fees. View "Bittner v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court and the decision of the court of appeals in this dispute over the beneficiary designation of an individual retirement account (IRA), holding that the designation unambiguously conveyed the IRA to the decedent's spouse rather than an unnamed family trust.Plaintiff, one of four children of the decedent in this case, argued that his father's IRA beneficiary designation designated an unnamed family trust as the primary beneficiary. The beneficiary designation, however, began by stating that the decedent's spouse was the 100 percent primary beneficiary of the IRA. The district court entered judgment determining that the decedent's spouse should receive the entire IRA account outright. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lower courts correctly determined that the spouse was entitled to the IRA. View "U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Bittner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the Iowa Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) and the district court misinterpreted Iowa Code 20.32 by extending broader bargaining rights to nontransit employees in the same bargaining unit as public transit employees, holding that the plain meaning of the statute protects only transit employees, not nontransit employees in the same bargaining unit.The City of Ames sought guidance as to whether section 20.32 requires broader bargaining rights for nontransit employees in the same bargaining unit. PERB concluded that broader bargaining rights must be extended under the statute to nontransit employees in a bargaining unit consisting of at least thirty percent transit employees, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the City was not required to provide broader bargaining rights to nontransit employees, regardless of the percentage of transit employees in the bargaining unit. View "City of Ames v. Iowa Public Employment Relations Bd." on Justia Law

In this appeal from the court of appeals' decision affirming a default judgment in a foreclosure case the Supreme Court held that, when a defendant is known to be represented by a lawyer, a plaintiff must send a copy of the notice of intent to the defendant in addition to the defendant's lawyer.Plaintiff in this case served a foreclosure lawsuit on an attorney that Plaintiff argued held himself out as Defendant's lawyer in the foreclosure suit. The attorney filed an acceptance of notice on Defendant's behalf, but no one filed any response to the petition. The district court entered a default judgment against Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding (1) Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.972(3) required Plaintiff in this case to mail notice of intent to both Defendant and Defendant's lawyer; and (2) Plaintiff's failure to comply with the rule's notice provisions left the district court without authority to enter the underlying default judgment against Defendant. View "Lincoln Savings Bank v. Emmert" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's convictions for sexual abuse in the second degree, holding that the district court erred by giving the jury asymmetrical, particularized noncorroboration instructions focusing on the victims' testimony, requiring a new trial.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual abuse and sentenced to a total of thirty-five years. The court of appeals reversed, holding that while the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions the noncorroboration instructions were improper, requiring a new trial. The Supreme Court granted the State's application for further review and affirmed the court of appeals' remand for a new trial, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to support the convictions; but (2) the noncorroboration instruction given to the jury in this case improperly gained the jury's consideration of the victims' testimony, and the error was prejudicial. View "State v. Ross" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied motions sought by Appellants to dismiss their misdemeanor cases on the ground that their no-bond arrest warrants, arrest, and subsequent temporary detentions were unlawful, holding that the district court did not act illegally in denying Appellants' respective motions to dismiss the assault charges filed against them.A magistrate issued arrest warrants for Appellants on charges of simple misdemeanor assault relating to an incident occurring during a business meeting. Appellants were arrested and detained overnight. Appellants made their initial appearances the next morning, posted $100 cash bond, and were released. Appellants then moved to dismiss their cases, but the district court denied their motions to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no basis for dismissing the indictments. View "Howsare v. Iowa District Court for Polk County" on Justia Law