UPDATES & ANALYSIS
Iowa Court of Appeals: Reversing an agency’s fact-based ruling is the “Bigfoot of the legal community”
By Ryan Koopmans
When an administrative agency makes a ruling that depends, at least in part, upon factual determinations, it’s difficult to get that ruling overturned on appeal. This morning, in a two-page opinion, Iowa Court of Appeals Judge Christopher McDonald tells us how difficult:
We begin and end our analysis with the following observation: “The administrative process presupposes judgment calls are to be left to the agency. Nearly all disputes are won or lost there.” Sellers v. Emp’t Appeal Bd., 531 N.W.2d 645, 646 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (citations omitted). A case reversing final agency action on the ground the agency’s action is unsupported by substantial evidence or is irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable is the Bigfoot of the legal community—an urban legend, rumored to exist but never confirmed. Here, the employer had a full and fair opportunity to present its evidence and argument to the deputy commissioner and the commissioner without success. The employer challenged the agency’s findings, conclusions, and application of the facts to the law in the district court without success. Like the district court, we have carefully examined the grainy eight millimeter film of the administrative record. We can add little to the thorough and well-reasoned ruling of the district court, and we will not reiterate the same analysis here. We conclude the agency’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, and its decision is not irrational, illogical, unreasonable, unjustifiable, arbitrary and capricious, or legally erroneous. The search for Bigfoot continues. The judgment of the district court is affirmed without further opinion.
But see:
FEATURED POSTS
Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in a defamation case April 3 at Drake Law School
Did a video recording of a school board meeting posted by the board on its YouTube channel defame a former tennis coach who alleges she was slandered by statements made during the public meeting? That question will be before the Iowa Supreme Court at an oral argument at the Drake Law School at 9:30 a.m. April 3 in Villarini v. Iowa City Community School District.
Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in eight cases March 26 and 27
The Iowa Supreme Court will hear arguments in eight cases March 26 and 27. Two cases will be submitted to the Court without oral arguments. Following are summaries of the March arguments. Go to OnBrief’s Cases in the Pipeline page to read briefs filed in these cases.
Statute penalizing assisted-reproduction fraud does not apply retroactively, Iowa Supreme Court holds
A state statute enacted in 2022 that created civil and criminal penalties for fertility doctors who fraudulently use their own sperm to help infertile couples conceive children through artificial insemination does not apply retroactively, the Iowa Supreme Court held in three decisions handed down March 14.
All three case …
Iowa Supreme Court issues split rulings on firearms rights
The Iowa Supreme Court handed down two rulings Feb. 21 addressing firearms rights under state and federal law.
EDITORIAL TEAM
ABOUT
On Brief: Iowa’s Appellate Blog is devoted to appellate litigation with a focus on the Iowa Supreme Court, the Iowa Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.