UPDATES & ANALYSIS

8.02

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.

 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.

 

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.

 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.

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.

 State v. Rodriguez

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

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.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

SHARE

Tags: ,

FEATURED POSTS

Slim Supreme Court majority allows public defender to withdraw from representing indigent defendant

Trial courts have a duty under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to assure that a criminal defendant who cannot afford to hire a lawyer is provided one at the State’s expense. To comply with that constitutional mandate, Iowa created the Office of State Public Defender (SPD) to employ attorneys to provide indigent defense or to contract with attorneys in private practice willing to take on those criminal cases.

Iowa Supreme Court: TikTok must face the State’s consumer fraud suit in Iowa court

Online video provider TikTok does business with millions of American users in all 50 states, including Iowans who have downloaded the company’s app hundreds of thousands of times and who agree to its terms of service. Still, the company argues, it should not have to defend itself against a lawsuit filed in state court by the Iowa Attorney General claiming the company misrepresents the nature of its content available to Iowa children.

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.

RELATED BLOGS

Related Links

ARCHIVES