Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession of a controlled substance under Iowa Code 124.401(5), holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.When Defendant was pulled over by an Iowa trooper for speeding she provided the trooper with a current Patient Medical Marijuana Registry Identification Card issued by the Arizona Department of Health Services, which allowed her to legally purchase and possess a limited amount of marijuana for medical use in Arizona. The registry card required a written certification completed by a licensed Arizona physician, but the certification was not provided to the trooper. On appeal from her convictions, Defendant challenged the district court's determination that the registry card and written certification were not a valid prescription or order and barring their admissions during trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly excluded from evidence the registry card and written certification because they were not a valid prescription or order; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on her remaining allegations of error. View "State v. Middlekauff" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Iowa Business Specialty Court denying Appellants' motion to dismiss this action involving a shareholder's challenge to a corporate merger involving the purchase of a publicly traded company's shares in a "going private transaction," holding that Appellee's claims must be dismissed.Appellee, a shareholder, brought this action alleging that Appellants, the corporation's directors, breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a flawed merger process that resulted in an unsatisfactory price for the minority shareholders' stock. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Appellee failed to plead around the statutory defenses available to the directors. The business court denied the motions to dismiss filed by Appellants. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant's allegations were insufficient to establish "intentional infliction of harm on the corporation or the shareholders" by the directors. View "Meade v. Christie" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals and the district court judgment convicting Defendant of murder in the first degree, holding that a verdict-urging instruction did not improperly coerce the jury verdict.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) a jury instruction that explains reasonable doubt in terms of "hesitate to act" is legally adequate, but because the inclusion of "hesitate to act" language was not legally required in this case the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to add the discretionary instruction; and (2) the verdict-urging instruction given in this case lacked content that this Court had previously disapproved of, but the jury was not improperly coerced by the court's verdict-urging instruction. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the order of the district court granting Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of drugs seized following a pat-down, holding that law enforcement's conclusion that Defendant possessed drugs met the bar to establish probable cause.The district court concluded that the officer's inability to discern the type of the drugs in the packaging before removing them from Defendant's pocket required suppression of the evidence. The court of appeals reversed, determining that the evidence was sufficient under the plain-feel exception to the warrant requirement that Defendant believed the package contained heroin, powder cocaine, or crack cocaine, despite not knowing which one. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence established probable cause for the officer to have arrested Defendant for drug possession. View "State v. Hunt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction and sentence for ongoing criminal conduct and Defendant's conviction for robbery in the first degree, holding that Defendant's conduct did not satisfy the requirements for ongoing criminal conduct.Defendant was indicted for his participation in a three-week crime spree that involved using a torch to cut into an ATM, robbing a bank, and using the proceeds to buy and subsequently sell marijuana. Defendant was convicted of first-degree robbery and ongoing criminal conduct and sentenced to twenty-five years on each. The Supreme Court vacated the convictions at issue, holding (1) the State presented insufficient evidence to establish the continuing basis element of the ongoing criminal conduct charge; and (2) Defendant's conviction for robbery in the first degree is vacated and the case remanded for entry of judgment and sentencing for robbery in the second degree. View "State v. Crawford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the court of appeals in this dissolution of marriage proceeding, holding that, contrary to the judgment of the lower court, Husband's concealment of a certain pension was intrinsic fraud.Throughout negotiation within the proceedings below, Husband failed to disclose his GE retirement pension. After Wife discovered the omission five years later she brought this action seeking to modify the dissolution decree by awarding her part of the pension, alleging extrinsic fraud. In response, Husband argued that the alleged fraud was intrinsic and that reasonable diligence on Wife's part would have led to the discovery of his pension within one year after entry of the order. The district court entered judgment for Wife. The court of appeals reversed in part, holding that the district court properly found the fraud was extrinsic but erred in determining that Wife would not have found the pension with reasonable diligence. The Supreme Court vacated in part, holding (1) Husband's concealment of the GE pension was intrinsic fraud; and (2) Wife would have discovered the pension within one year with reasonable diligence. View "In re Marriage of Hutchinson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals concluding that the public-duty doctrine barred Plaintiffs' tort claims against the State of Iowa and two municipalities, holding that the district court correctly denied Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.This case arose from an accident in which a driver traveling the wrong way on Interstate 80 collided with another vehicle, killing all of the occupants. Plaintiffs brought this action alleging that Defendants were liable because of their role in negligently constructing and operating a confusing interchange used by the errant driver. Defendants filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings under the public-duty doctrine, which the district court denied. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the public-duty doctrine barred all of Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants. The Supreme Court vacated the decision below and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that complaint was sufficient to avoid application of the public-duty doctrine for purposes of adjudicating the motion for judgment on the pleadings. View "Estate of Farrell v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of a beneficiary and ruling that an amendment to an irrevocable trust was invalid, holding that the surviving settlor of an irrevocable trust cannot, with the consent of all of the beneficiaries, modify the dispositive terms of an irrevocable trust without court approval.Donald and Collen Davis established the trust at issue. After Collen died, Donald sought to amend the dispositive terms of the trust. Donald and his four children signed a consent document on different days and then Donald executed an amendment altering the disposition of the trust estate. Katina Little, one of the children, brought this action challenging the validity of the amendment. The district court granted summary judgment for Little, concluding that the amendment to the trust agreement was void for lack of authority. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the consent of Donald and the four beneficiaries was insufficient to modify the trust after Collen's death. View "Little v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that the beneficiary of an estate cannot file a separate suit outside probate against the personal representative of the estate for claims arising out of and related to the personal representative's fees for administering the estate.After Roger Rand died testate, attorney Larry Storm informed Security National Bank that it had been nominated as the personal representative of the estate. Plaintiff, a beneficiary of the estate, later received a document entitled "Estate Administration Overview" that included a statement regarding fees for the estate's administration. The document reflected the maximum fees for ordinary services that a personal representative could receive. Plaintiff objected, arguing that Security National deprived the beneficiaries of the opportunity to replace the personal representative with another that required a smaller fee. The probate court reduced the fees to Security National below the requested amounts. Plaintiff then brought this suit against Security National arising from Security National's service as the personal representative of the estate. The district court held that Plaintiff's claims should have been asserted in the probate court or otherwise failed as a matter of law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment to Security National on all claims. View "Rand v. Security National Corp." on Justia Law

In this case disputing whether a drainage district properly reclassified benefits in connection with a drainage repair project the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the lower courts did not err.The drainage district at issue was formed more than a century ago, and a railroad that traversed the land within the district court was assessed 4.81 percent of the benefit of installation of tiling. In 2018, the drainage district determined that repairs were needed to the tiling and sought to reclassify the land in the district to equitably apportion the cost of the new repairs. The reclassification commission recommended that one-half of the repair cost be assessed to the railroad through the reclassification process. The drainage district approved the reclassification. The railroad brought this action challenging the reclassification. The district court granted summary judgment for the railroad, concluding that the reclassification commission acted inequitably, and declared the reclassification of benefits null and void. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the railroad met its burden of showing that the assessment was inequitable and improper as a matter of law. View "Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Drainage District 67 Board of Trustees" on Justia Law