Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting a tax deed holder possession of disputed property and remanded the case for dismissal, holding that Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.943 barred the tax deed holder's third forcible entry and detainer (FED) action, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise.At issue was Rule 1.943, under which a second voluntary dismissal of a tax deed holder's FED action operates as an adjudication on the merits unless the court orders otherwise. The tax deed holder in this case twice purported to dismiss without prejudice its FED petition against the property owner who was delinquent in paying taxes. The district court allowed the tax deed holder's third FED action to go forward. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by allowing the third FED action to go forward because it involved the same claim as the two prior actions. View "ACC Holdings, LLC v. Rooney" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Insurer in this insurance dispute, holding that summary judgment was properly granted.Insured, which operated a bar and restaurant, made a claim under its commercial property insurance policy for business interruption coverage for the period it closed its business in response to the order of the West Virginia Governor that bars and restaurants shut down in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Insurer denied the claim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the language "direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property" requires a physical aspect to the property loss before coverage is triggered; and (2) Insured's claim failed under the provision that required actual damage to nearby property. View "Jesse’s Embers, LLC v. Western Agricultural Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of an Insurer in this insurance dispute, holding that the mere loss of use of business property did not constitute "direct physical loss of or damage to property" to trigger coverage in this case.Insured, which operated a private golf and country club, made a claim under its all-risk commercial property insurance policy for income it lost during the time it temporarily closed its facilities in compliance with the Governor's 2020 proclamation restricting in-person services at bars and restaurants in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Insurer denied the claim, and Insured sued. The district court granted Insurer's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the mere loss of use of business property does not constitute “direct physical loss of or damage to property” to trigger coverage under the business interruption endorsement to an all-risk commercial property insurance policy like the one at issue in this case. View "Wakonda Club v. Selective Insurance Co. of America" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress and convicting him of possession of methamphetamine, second offense, holding that law enforcement acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment and Iowa Const. art. I, 8 by ordering Defendant out of the vehicle.Defendant was the passenger in a vehicle that was stopped for speeding. Officers asked Defendant to exit the vehicle in order to facilitate the lawful arrest of the back-seat passenger. Officers then asked if they could check Defendant for weapons. The officer's pat-down revealed a methamphetamine pipe and a baggie containing methamphetamine. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained after the exit order, which the district court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's consent was voluntary based on the totality of the circumstances; and (2) the Iowa Constitution does no require that subjects of a search must be informed of their right to decline the search in order for their consent to be voluntary. View "State v. Hauge" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's professional negligence action against several healthcare providers, holding that the district court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff failed to file the certificate of merit required by Iowa Code 147.140.Plaintiff filed this action alleging professional negligence, negligent hiring, retention, or supervision of professional staff and other claims. The district court dismissed the petition under section 147.140. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff exclusively alleged professional negligence claims that fell within the scope of section 147.140, and therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the complaint. View "Struck v. Mercy Health Services-Iowa Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for Defendants in this medical malpractice action, holding that Defendants were not estopped from asserting the statute of repose defense, which applied to the facts of this case.In 2004, a benign cyst was detected on Linda Berry's right kidney. In 2009, Dr. Paul Grossman treated Berry for colitis, and a radiologist noted that the mass had grown in size, but no one mentioned this to Berry. In 2016, Berry was treated for renal cancer. Berry died from cancer in 2019. In 2018, Berry filed a medical malpractice action against Defendants for failing to disclose the kidney mass in 2009. Defendants moved for summary judgment based on the six-year statute of repose found in Iowa Code 614.1(9). The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, rejecting Plaintiffs' reliance on the doctrine of fraudulent concealment to avoid the six-year bar. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Berry could not rely on fraudulent concealment to estop Defendants from asserting the six-year statute of repose as a defense to Berry's claims. View "Downing v. Grossman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress and convicting him of being a felon in possession of a firearm, holding that there was no error in the denial of the motion to suppress.Defendant was a passenger in a Lyft vehicle that was stopped for traffic violations. The officers recognized Defendant from past eluding incidents and ordered him out of the vehicle to conduct a pat-down for weapons. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable and articulable facts to justify ordering him out of the vehicle and patting him down. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to justify ordering Defendant out of the vehicle and subsequently patting him down for weapons. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

In this case involving Democrat Abby Finkenauer's candidacy for U.S. Senate the Supreme Court sustained the State Objections Panel's decision to reject objections as to the signatures of three electors who had provided either no date or a clearly incorrect date, holding that there was no error.If the objectors' position as to the signatures in this case had been sustained, Finkenauer would have failed to meet the requirements to be placed on the June 7, 2022 Democratic primary ballot. The Panel allowed Finkenauer's nomination petition. The district court reversed, holding that the three undated or improperly dated signatures should not have been counted. At issue was Iowa Code 43.15(2), which makes the date a legal requirement when an eligible elector signs a nomination petition, and recent legislation passed last year, Iowa Code 43.24(2)(a), which did not include missing or incorrect dates as one of the grounds for sustaining an objection to a petition. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the recent legislation prevailed. View "Schmett v. State Objections Panel" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court's of restitution against Defendant, holding that the restitution was constitutionally impermissible.Under Iowa Code 910.3B, an award of at least $150,000 is required when "the offender is convicted of a felony in which the act or acts committed by the offender caused the death of another person." On appeal from his conviction for assault causing serious injury and conspiracy to commit a forcible felony, Defendant argued that the district court erred in ordering him to pay $150,000 in restitution because the jury did not find beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused the death of another. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) section 910.3B does not require a jury finding that the defendant caused the death of another person; (2) because the $150,000 restitution in punitive in part, awards of such restitution must be based on findings determined by the jury; and (3) because no jury found that Defendant caused the death of the victim of the shooting, the restitution award must be reversed. View "State v. Davison" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the juvenile court that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply to the termination of parental rights proceedings below, holding that the juvenile court did not err in determining that Z.K. was not an "Indian child" under ICWA.After holding a hearing on the applicability of ICWA the juvenile court concluded that ICWA remained inapplicable to Z.K. Turning to the merits, the juvenile court found that the State's reasonable efforts to avoid the out-of-home placement had been unsuccessful and proceeded to terminate the parents' parental rights to Z.K. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court properly determined that Z.K. did not meet the definition of "Indian child" under the applicable ICWA statutes. View "In re Z.K." on Justia Law