UPDATES & ANALYSIS

2.14

Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in nine cases Feb. 17-19

by Rox Laird | February 14, 2025

Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in nine cases Feb. 17 – 19

The Iowa Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in nine cases Feb. 17, 18, and 19. Four other cases will be submitted to the Court without oral argument. Following are brief summaries of the February cases, not including an attorney disciplinary case. [Go the Judicial Branch website to read briefs filed in these cases.]

Estate of Kahn, et al., vs. City of Clermont, et al.
Scheduled for oral argument Feb. 17, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Can the State and local governments be held liable for the deaths of two women who drowned while tubing on a state-approved water trail?

The estates of Sharon Khan and Vicki Hodges appeal the Fayette County District Court’s dismissal of the estates’ wrongful death claims against City of Clermont, Fayette County, the Fayette County Conservation Board, and the State of Iowa for the deaths of Sharon Kahn and her daughter, Vicki Hodges. The women had been tubing on the Turkey River water trail and drowned after they went over a low-head dam. The estates argue the defendants are liable for the women’s deaths due to the lack of adequate warnings of the dangerous low-head dam on the State-designated water trail. The estates argue the district court erred in dismissing their claims on four different grounds, including the applicability of the public-duty doctrine, State sovereign immunity, and qualified immunity.

 

State v. Scullark
Scheduled for oral argument Feb. 17, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did a police officer legally search a fanny pack that was no longer in the suspect’s possession during the course of his arrest?

The State seeks further review of a divided Aug. 21, 2024, Iowa Court of Appeals ruling reversing and remanding the Black Hawk District Court’s denial of Patrick Scullark’s motion to suppress evidence police obtained from his fanny pack in the course of making an arrest on a charge of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. Two members of a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in concluding that the search was legal because Scullark was handcuffed and unable to reach the fanny pack, thus posing no risk that he could obtain any evidence or weapon. A third dissenting member of the panel would have affirmed the district court and found that the fanny pack was lawfully searched as incident to arrest. The State argues in its application for further review that the Iowa Supreme Court should clarify that searches incident to an arrest include the items “immediately surrounding” an arrestee’s person at the time of the arrest.

 

Harrison v. Mickey
Scheduled for oral argument Feb. 18, 9 a.m.

Question: Are the Des Moines Police Department’s “use-of-force” reports subject to disclosure under the Iowa Open Records Act?

Lisa Mickey in her official capacity as Open Records Coordinator and the City of Des Moines appeal the Polk County District Court’s summary judgment ruling ordering the City to turn over Des Moines Police Department “use-of-force” reports to plaintiff-appellee Harvey Harrison. The order was stayed by the Iowa Supreme Court pending the City’s appeal. Harrison sought use-of-force reports made during calendar year 2020 under the Iowa Public Records Act (Iowa Code Chapter 22). The City argues the district court erred in concluding those reports are public records subject to disclosure to Harrison with redactions of any injuries to a reporting officer. The City argues the reports produced by individual police officers are exempt from disclosure under section 22.7(11)(a), which provides for confidentiality of personal information in confidential personnel records of government bodies. The City also argues its case for maintaining the confidentiality of use-of-force reports is supported by the Peace Officer, Public Safety, and Emergency Personnel Bill of Rights (Iowa Code Section 80F), which provides for confidentiality of complaints or proceedings against an officer unless otherwise provided by law.

An amicus curiae brief in support of the defendants-appellants was filed with the Court by the Iowa Attorney General on behalf of the State.

 

State v. Woods
Scheduled for oral Argument Feb. 18, 9 a.m.

Question: Does Iowa’s statute that bars a person who illegally possesses a controlled substance from carrying firearms violate the U.S. and Iowa constitutions?

Kevin Woods Jr. appeals the Polk County District Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss a charge of violating Iowa Code section 724.8B, which prohibits a person who illegally possesses a controlled substance from carrying dangerous weapons. Woods conditionally pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana and to the weapons charge pending this appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court. Woods argues denial of his right to possess a firearm under section 724.8B violates his rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 1A of the Iowa Constitution. While both federal and state constitutions protect the right to keep and bear arms, the Iowa Constitution goes on to say that any restrictions of the right shall be subject to strict scrutiny. Woods argues section 724.8B cannot survive strict scrutiny.

 

Estate of Morgan v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Scheduled for argument Feb. 18, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Must a wrongful death claim under the Federal Employers Liability, where the death was a suicide allegedly triggered by work-related stresses, be analyzed as an emotional injury using the zone of danger test?

The Estate of Phillip Raymond Morgan appeals the Polk County District Court’s summary judgment dismissal of the Estate’s wrongful death claim against Union Pacific Railroad Co. under the Federal Employers Liability Act (45 U.S.C. 51). The Estate argues that Phillip Morgan’s death by suicide at the time of his employment by the railroad as a welder’s assistant was caused by stress created by his supervisor who created an unsafe workplace that ultimately caused Morgan to take his own life. Morgan’s Estate argues that the district court erred in applying a U.S. Supreme Court precedent to conclude that Morgan’s injury was an emotional injury as opposed to a physical injury resulting in death.

 

Wagner v. State and Spece
Scheduled for oral argument Feb. 18, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Whether the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Burnett v. Smith applies retroactively to bar a plaintiff’s constitutional tort wrongful death claim against the State.

Krystal Wagner individually and as administrator of the Estate of Shane Jensen seeks further review of a March 27, 2024, Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming the Humboldt County District Court’s decision granting summary judgment to the State and Department of Natural Resources Officer, William Spece. Officer Spece shot and killed Wagner’s son during a confrontation with law enforcement officers. Wagner brought an excessive force claim and two other claims on behalf of her son’s estate under the Iowa Constitution, citing the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling in Godfrey v. State saying that a party could file a tort action for monetary damages based on violations of the Iowa Constitution. While Wagner’s appeal was pending, the Court overruled Godfrey. The Court of Appeals thus concluded Wagner’s constitutional tort claims are no longer recognized as a cause of action. In seeking further review of the Court of Appeals decision, Wagner urges the Iowa Supreme Court to allow her to proceed with her common law claims in district court.

 

State v. Gardner
Will be submitted to the Court Feb. 18 without oral argument.

Question: Is a criminal offender ineligible for a deferred judgment under Iowa Code section 907.3(1)(a)(1) based on the date of the prior felony offense or the date of the prior felony conviction?

Ewaun Gardner Jr. appeals his sentence to three years of probation by the Linn County District Court after pleading guilty to interference with official acts with a dangerous weapon. The district court held that Gardner was not eligible for a deferred judgment under Iowa Code section 907.3, which says in part that “the court shall not defer judgment” if the defendant “previously has been convicted of a felony.” Gardner had previously been convicted of a felony in Johnson County District Court for an offense that occurred after the offense in Linn County. The Johnson County case was concluded before the Linn County sentencing. In denying Gardner a deferred judgment, the Linn County District Court said that, while the Linn County offense occurred before the Johnson County offense, the Johnson County conviction was entered before Linn County’s; therefore, it was a prior conviction. In his appeal, Gardner argues that the statute should be read to mean the Johnson County offense must have been committed prior to the Linn County offense in order to render him ineligible for a deferred judgment.

 

Heartland Co-op v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co.
Scheduled for oral argument Feb. 19, 9 a.m.

[Disclosure: Nyemaster Goode attorney John F. Lorentzen represents Heartland Co-op in this case.]

Question: Does an insurance policy’s $3 million cap on wind-storm losses apply across all of an insured company’s business locations or at each of the company’s 86 locations?

Heartland Co-op seeks further review of a divided June 5, 2024, Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming the Polk County District Court’s ruling that Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Co.’s insurance policy issued to Heartland Co-op covering lost earnings and extra expenses caused by a 2020 derecho provided $3 million in coverage for losses across Heartland’s 86 locations, not $3 million at each location. Two members of a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the insurance contract created a $3 million limit for the lost earnings and extra expenses suffered across all Heartland business locations and that Heartland experienced only one loss. The third member of the panel dissented, arguing that because Nationwide’s policy is susceptible to two different interpretations, the interpretation favoring the insured must be adopted based on a 1991 Iowa Supreme Court precedent.

 

State v. Cole
Scheduled for oral argument Feb. 19, 9 a.m.

Question: Does a ban on possessing firearms by a person subject to a domestic abuse protective order violate the constitutional right to bear arms?

Jordan Cole appeals the Story County District Court’s denial of his motion to dismiss two charges of possession of a firearm or offensive weapon by a domestic abuser, arguing both the federal and Iowa constitutions protect him against being deprived of the right to bear arms under a civil domestic abuse protective order. Cole argues he has a fundamental, individual right to possess firearms under the Second and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 1A of the Iowa Constitution and that his firearms rights cannot be extinguished by a civil protective order.

 

Kirlin v. Monaster, et al.
Will be submitted to the Court without oral argument Feb. 19.

Question: Did a Iowa Supreme Court decision remanding a medical malpractice case to the district court reset the deadline for plaintiffs to certify expert witnesses?

Jahn and Sara Kirlin appeal the Pottawattamie County District Court’s decision granting summary judgment to defendants Barclay A. Monaster M.D., Christian William Jones MD, and Physicians Clinic Inc. in the Kirlins’ medical malpractice claims. The district court ruled that the Kirlins’ failed to timely certify an expert witness and dismissed the case. In a previous appeal of a previous summary judgment dismissal of this case, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court. The Kirlins argue the clock for certifying an expert witness did not continue running through the previous appeal but instead began running anew the day the case was remanded.

 

Does v. Western Dubuque Community School District, et al.
Scheduled for oral argument Feb. 19, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Was a negligence suit against a school district properly dismissed because the parent-plaintiffs wished to bring the action anonymously to avoid publicly identifying their minor child?

Parents identified in this case as Parent Father Doe and Parent Mother Doe appeal the Dubuque County District Court’s ruling granting a motion to dismiss filed by Western Dubuque Community School District and three district officials. The parents brought claims against the school district for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and loss of consortium for a physical assault on their child, identified as Minor Doe, by another student at their middle school. The Doe parents, who wish to avoid publicly identifying their daughter in their action, argue the district court erred in dismissing their case for failure to comply with Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure requiring naming of the parties. They argue the court instead should have applied the heightened security requirements under the Iowa Rules of Electronic Procedure protecting the identity of minors.

 

State v. Ruiz
Will be submitted to the Court Feb. 19 without oral argument.

Question: Was an application for postconviction relief by an offender convicted of sexual abuse properly dismissed based on the statute of limitations?

Brandon Ruiz seeks further review of a divided Aug. 21, 2024, Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming the Scott County District Court’s dismissal of his second application for postconviction relief following his conviction for second-degree sexual abuse. Ruiz’s fist application for postconviction relief was dismissed by the district court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The district court dismissed Ruiz’s second application for postconviction relief as the statute of limitations had expired. In affirming the district court, two members of the Court of Appeals panel held that Ruiz failed to preserve his equitable tolling argument for appeal, and the record was inadequate to decide Ruiz’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The third member of the panel dissented.  Agreeing with Ruiz that he was not only denied competent representation but “was constructively without counsel during his [PCR] proceedings,” the dissenting judge would have reversed and remanded the case.

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25