UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Supreme Court Grants Further Review in 7 Cases

by Ryan Koopmans | August 2, 2011

By Ryan Koopmans

On Monday, the Supreme Court granted petitions for further review in seven cases.  A brief summary of the issues, as well as links to the Court of Appeals opinions, briefs, and petitions for further review are below the jump.

 City of Riverdale v. Diercks

Court of Appeals Ruling: Reversal of attorney fee and expert witness fee awards because:  1) the City did not violate Iowa Code chapter 22, and 2) the district court made no finding the City operated in bad faith.

• Court of Appeals Opinion

 Loehr v. Mettille

Court of Appeals Ruling: Reversal of district court’s granting of a new trial because plaintiff failed to preserve error when it had ample opportunity to do so before the case went to the jury and should not be able to obtain a new trial by bringing new objections after the jury has reached a verdict.

• Court of Appeals Opinion

Whitley v. C.R. Pharmacy Serv.

Court of Appeals Ruling: Granted a new trial because the district court abused its discretion by allowing defendant to offer two crucial exhibits at trial that they had not disclosed to plaintiff before trial, as Iowa discovery rules and a pre-trial order in the case required.

• Court of Appeals Opinion

 Fry v. Blauvelt

Court of Appeals Ruling: Granted a new trial because the district court abused its discretion by admitting photographs of damage to the construction site, which were irrelevant to the plaintiff’s case and were prejudicial to the defendant.

• Court of Appeals Opinion

State v. Mootz

Court of Appeals Ruling: Found that the district court erred in denying the defendant’s peremptory strike of a minority juror by failing to follow the Batson procedure, but affirmed the jury verdict because defendant was not prejudiced by the district court’s harmless error.

• Court of Appeals Opinion

 State v. Rodriguez

Court of Appeals Ruling: Affirmed defendant’s guilty plea and vacated a $125 law enforcement initiative surcharge from defendant’s sentence.

• Court of Appeals Opinion

In re B.R

Court of Appeals Ruling: Affirmed the district court’s finding that B.R. did not prove “willful and intentional contempt” by the County when it failed to place B.R. in a residential facility as ordered by the magistrate.

• Court of Appeals Opinion 

Tags: Further Review, Iowa Supreme Court