Melissa Nelson asks the Iowa Supreme Court to reconsider her case–again

by Ryan Koopmans | July 17, 2013

By Ryan Koopmans

As AP reporter Ryan Foley  first reported yesterday, Melissa Nelson–the “irresistible employee”–has filed a second petition for rehearing.  That’s highly unusual.  Once a court has taken the rare step of rehearing a case and then reaffirms its earlier decision, there is virtually no chance that it will consider the case a third time.  But that’s what Nelson is asking the Iowa Supreme Court to do.

In December of last year, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Nelson, and last Friday, after agreeing to rehear the case three weeks ago, the justices voted the same way.  To be sure, the justices had a slight difference of opinion this time around.  In December, everyone signed onto Justice Mansfield’s opinion, and this time Chief Justice Cady wrote a concurring opinion that Justices Wiggins and Hecht joined.  But Justice Mansfield’s opinion is still the majority opinion (three other justices signed onto it), and that opinion remained largely unchanged.

Nelson’s second petition is focused entirely on Chief Justice Cady’s concurrence, and her attorney refers to it over and over as the opinion of the “Court.”  Here’s the problem with that: A concurring opinion that doesn’t garner a majority of the justices is not–by definition–the opinion of the Court.  It’s the minority view.  And even if Chief Justice Cady and Justices Wiggins and Hecht agree with her critiques,  the outcome of the case would be the same.  Justice Mansfield’s opinion would be, as it is now, the law of this State.

Nevertheless, Nelson asks the Court to reconsider several aspects of Chief Justice Cady’s opinion, including the characterization of Nelson’s relationship with Dr. Knight as a “consensual” one.  Nelson’s attorney says “[t]hat word is dripping with sexual innendo [sic].”

You can read the full petition here.

[UPDATE: The Iowa Supreme Court has denied Nelson’s second petition for hearing.]




Iowa Constitution mandates face-to-face confrontation by witness, Iowa Supreme Court rules

A defendant’s right under the Iowa Constitution to confront witnesses at trial is not satisfied by one-way video testimony where the witness testifying on camera is not able to see the defendant, the Iowa Supreme Court held in a 4-3 ruling handed down June 28. In reaching that conclusion, the Court declined to follow a U.S. Supreme Court precedent and overruled one of its own prior rulings.

April 2024 Opinion Roundup

The Iowa Supreme Court entered opinions in nine cases during April 2024.  Opinions from April not covered elsewhere on the blog are summarized below.



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.


Related Links