Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court vacated in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming the district court's ruling that Iowa Code chapter 411 ordinary disability benefits are marital property, holding that chapter 411 ordinary disability benefits replace income that an individual would have earned if not for an injury causing the disability and should be treated as income rather than as property.The district court entered a dissolution decree dissolving the marriage of Matt and Karri Miller. The district court determined that Matt's chapter 411 ordinary disability benefit was marital property subject to division. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether Matt's future disability benefit was income or property. The Supreme Court vacated in part the court of appeals' decision and let the rest of the court of appeals' opinion stand on the remaining issues, holding that Matt's future disability benefit is a replacement for income and not part of the marital pot to be divided upon dissolution. View "In re Marriage of Miller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction and sentence, holding that the district court erred in allowing the State to amend the trial information one week prior to the day of trial.The State charged Defendant with, among other offenses, assault causing bodily injury. One week prior to trial, the State moved to amend the trial information to charge Defendant with willful injury causing bodily injury. The district court allowed the amendment, concluding that the elements were substantially similar and the underlying facts remained the same. Defendant was subsequently found guilty. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding the court of appeals erred in relying on State v. Brisco, 816 N.W.2d 415 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012), to conclude that the charge of willful injury causing bodily injury was not wholly new and different from assault causing bodily injury. View "State v. Vandermark" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court reversing the Iowa Board of Medicine declaratory order interpreting Iowa Code 272C.6(4)(a) as allowing the Board to publish statements of charges and press releases containing investigative information, holding that the district court did not err.The Board filed a statement of charges against Dr. Domenico Calcaterra accusing him of a "pattern of disruptive behavior and/or unethical or unprofessional conduct" and published the statement of charges against Dr. Calcaterra, along with a press release, on the Board's website. Several years after the parties reached a settlement, information about the allegations against Dr. Calcaterra remained available on the Board's website. Dr. Calcaterra filed a petition for declaratory order with the Board challenging that Board's ongoing dissemination of investigative information. The Board denied the challenge. The district court set aside the Board's order, holding that section 272.6(4)(a) prohibited the disclosure of the investigative information. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Board incorrectly interpreted section 272C.6(4)(a) and that investigative information cannot be released to the public in a statement of charges or a press release when there has been no underlying final decision in the disciplinary proceeding. View "Calcaterra v. Iowa Board of Medicine" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction of assault while using or displaying a dangerous weapon, holding that the district court erred in allowing the State to amend the trial information on the day of trial.The State filed a trial information charging Defendant with assault causing bodily injury. On the first day of trial, the State moved to amend the charge of assault causing bodily injury to assault while using or displaying a dangerous weapon. The district court allowed the amendment, and a jury found Defendant guilty of the amended charge. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the amended trial information charged a wholly new and different offense within the meaning of Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.4(8)(a), and the district court erred in allowing the amendment. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of sexually abusing his seven-year-old daughter, K.W., holding that the trial court erred by admitting videos of two forensic interviews in which K.W. described the abuse and the admission was not harmless error.Defendant was convicted of sexual abuse in the second degree, enticing a minor, and indecent exposure. On appeal, Defendant argued that the forensic interview videos involving K.W. and played for the jury were inadmissible hearsay and did not fall within any exception to the hearsay rule. The Supreme Court agreed and remanded the case for a new trial, holding that neither interview was admissible under the Court's hearsay rules and that the error was not harmless. View "State v. Skahill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the juvenile court's permanency order transferring sole legal custody of the child in this case to Father, holding that there was convincing evidence to show that the child could safely be transitioned to Mother's care at the time of the permanency hearing.The State initiated a child-in-need-of-assistance proceeding due to the parents' inability to coparent. At the time, Mother was the primary custodial parent. Mother participated in services to reunify with the child and showed progress, but the juvenile court determined it was not safe to return the child to Mother's home and entered a permanency order transferring sole legal custody of the child to Father. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was convincing evidence to show the child could safely be transitioned to Mother's care at the time of the permanency hearing. View "In re D.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court conditionally affirmed Defendant's convictions of three misdemeanor drug offenses and remanded this case for further proceedings, holding that remand was required for the district court to apply the standard set forth in State v. Wright, 961 N.W.2d 396 (Iowa 2021).Last term, in Wright, the Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers conducted an unconstitutional seizure and search when they seized and searched garbage bags left out for collection without first obtaining a warrant. In the instant case, Defendant argued that a sheriff's deputy violated his constitutional rights by seizing and searching his trash without first obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court conditionally affirmed Defendant's convictions and remanded the case for the district court to hold a hearing on Defendant's motion to suppress evidence without consideration of the evidence obtained during the trash pull. View "State v. Kuuttila" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court striking down sections 99 and 100 of House File 766, which added funding conditions prohibiting abortion providers from participating in two federally funded educational grant programs directed at reducing teenage pregnancy and promoting abstinence, holding that any conditions premised on providing abortions cannot be considered unconstitutional.Planned Parenthood of the Heartland (PPH) was a former grantee of both grants and, upon the passage of sections 99 and 100, became ineligible to receive funding. PPH brought a declaratory judgment action arguing that the Act violated its rights to equal protection, due process, free speech, and free association under the Iowa Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment for PPH and enjoined enforcement of the legislative enactments. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the conditions were rationally related to the classification selected by the general assembly; and (2) where abortion providers have no constitutional right to perform abortions, the unconstitutional conditions doctrine did not prohibit the State form barring abortion providers from receiving the funding at issue. View "Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the owner of a zip line in this personal injury action, holding that exculpatory clauses purporting to negate liability for acts that are wantonly or recklessly committed generally violate public policy.Mt. Crescent Ski Area contracted with Challenge Quest, LLC to build and install a zip line. When Plaintiff took the zip line an employee had failed to reset the zip line's braking system after the previous rider existed. Consequently, Plaintiff slammed into a wood pole at the base of the zip line and fractured his neck. Plaintiff sued Challenge Quest and Mt. Crescent. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Challenge Quest, concluding that it owed no duty to Plaintiff because it didn't install the allegedly defective braking system in place when Plaintiff was injured. The district court also granted summary judgment for Mt. Crescent based on a liability waiver that Plaintiff signed before riding. The Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment ruling as to Mt. Crescent, holding that the contractual waiver limiting Mt. Crescent's liability was unenforceable to the extent it purported to eliminate liability for the willful, wanton, or reckless conduct that Plaintiff alleged. View "Lukken v. Century, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court in favor of Plaintiff on his claims of sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA), Iowa Code 216.1-.21, holding that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to all claims, notwithstanding any errors.After Republican Terry Branstad defeated incumbent Democratic Governor Chet Culver Brandstad requested that thirty executive branch officers appointed by prior Democratic administrations each submit a letter of resignation. After Plaintiff refused to resign the Governor reduced his compensation. Plaintiff then brought this suit, alleging sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation and violations of his constitutional right to be paid a particular salary. A jury rendered a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in denying Defendants' motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict with respect to Plaintiff's claims arising under the ICRA; and (2) Plaintiff's constitutional claim failed as a matter of law. View "Godfrey v. State" on Justia Law