UPDATES & ANALYSIS

11.07

Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in 10 cases Nov. 12 and 13

by Rox Laird | November 7, 2025

The Iowa Supreme Court will hear arguments in 10 cases Nov. 12 and 13. One other case will be submitted to the Court without oral argument. Following are brief summaries of those cases. [Go to On Brief’s “Cases in the Pipeline” page to read the briefs filed in these cases.]

 

Montague v. Skinner, et al.

Scheduled for oral argument Nov. 12, 9 a.m.

Question: Is a claim of coemployee negligence by the estate of a state corrections officer who was murdered by an inmate barred because Iowa workers’ compensation laws are the exclusive means for seeking compensation for workplace injuries?

Iowa Department of Corrections officials and Anamosa State Prison correctional officers appeal the Jones County District Court’s ruling denying their motion to dismiss Sara Montague and the Estate of Robert McFarland’s claims of coemployee gross negligence against Department of Corrections officials and 26 correctional employees working with McFarland. McFarland was an Anamosa corrections officer who was murdered by two inmates. The plaintiff-appellees assert McFarland’s death was caused by the gross negligence of coemployees, including prison overcrowding, understaffing, and budget restraints. Corrections officials argue on appeal Iowa workers’ compensation laws provide the exclusive means for payment of compensation for a public employee’s workplace injuries, precluding claims under the Iowa Tort Claims Act.

 

Fink v. Lawson

Scheduled for argument Nov. 12, 9 a.m.

Question: Did the Delaware County District Court err in ruling a neighbor had no claim on an easement against their neighbor’s property?

Mark and Stacy Fink, plaintiffs-appellees in a quiet title action, and Donald and Linda Lawson, defendant-appellants in the case, seek further review of a Feb. 5 Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming the Delaware County District Court’s ruling that the Lawsons had no easement claims on the Finks’ property while holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment rejecting the Lawsons’ prescriptive easement affirmative defense and remanding to the district court for further proceedings. The Lawsons, in their application for further review, urge the Iowa Supreme Court to join other states that permit reformation of a written instrument to reflect the true intentions of the parties when a party is incorrectly referenced in the instrument, and to adopt a “control test” when evaluating their easement-by-implication claim. The Finks, in seeking further review, argue that the Court of Appeals wrongly interpreted the district court ruling on the summary judgment record.

 

Willhoite v. Genesis Health System, et al.

Will be submitted to the Court Nov. 12 without oral argument.

Question: Was a notice of appeal signed by a plaintiff in his personal capacity on behalf of two estates for which he is the executor improperly filed with the Iowa Supreme Court?

Patrick Willoite individually and as the executor of the Estates of Margaret Ruth Willhoite and Michael Willhoite, and Jessie Gaffeller individually, appeals the Scott County District Court’s dismissal of their medical malpractice suit against Genesis Health System, et al., for a purportedly defective certificate of merit submitted to the defendants. The defendant-appellees filed a motion with the Iowa Supreme Court to dismiss this appeal. The Court denied the motion but it ordered the issue to be briefed by the parties. The plaintiff-appellants argue their notice of appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court was not defective, as the defendants-appellees claim, because it was signed by Patrick Willhoite in his personal capacity and in his capacity as executor of both Estates.

 

Betz v. Mathisen, et al.

Scheduled for oral argument Nov. 12, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Should the statute of limitations clock in defamation claims start running when an alleged defamatory statement is published, or when it is discovered?

[Disclosure: Nyemaster Goode attorneys David Bower, Katie Graham, and Dana Hempy represent the defendants-appellees.]

Rebecca Mathisen, Eric Muller, Kelly Rasmuson and Michael Wilson seek further review of a divided March 5 Iowa Court of Appeals decision reversing the Polk County District Court’s dismissal of Linda Betz’s defamation claim against the four Des Moines Federal Home Loan Bank employees whose statements made in audit reports and in other comments she asserts damaged her reputation and led to her firing. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Betz’s suit because it was not filed within the two-year statute of limitations under Iowa Code section 614.1(2), which starts the statute of limitations clock when an alleged defamation is published. Betz argues on appeal that the clock should begin when she discovered the defamation, but no Iowa appellate court has adopted that standard. In its March 5 decision, the Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, held 6-to-3 that Iowa should adopt that standard in cases such as Betz’s where alleged defamatory statements were inherently undiscoverable. In their application for further review, the defendants-appellees argue that Betz was aware of the claimed defamation based on allegations she made in her previous lawsuit dismissed in federal court, meaning claims in her second suit in Polk County District Court fell outside the statute of limitations.

 

Thorington v. Scott County and Hill

Scheduled for oral argument Nov. 12, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Was a deputy sheriff’s fatal shooting of a suspect during a traffic stop justified because the suspect tried to drive off with the deputy clinging to the suspect’s hand through the open door?

Patty Thorington individually and as administrator of the Estate of Robert Ronald Mitchell appeals the Scott County District Court’s dismissal on summary judgment of Thorington’s claims against Scott County and Scott County Deputy Sheriff Greg Hill of assault, battery, and violation of Iowa statutes regarding reasonable and deadly force in fatal shooting of Mitchell, Thorington’s son, by Deputy Hill during a traffic stop. Hill stopped Mitchell’s vehicle for a traffic violation that escalated when he sought to execute a warrant and Mitchell tried to drive off, resulting in Hill fatally shooting Mitchell. Thorington argues on appeal that the defendants cannot rely on an exception for an emergency to justify the use of deadly force because the stop was for a malfunctioning tail light, and she disagrees with the trial court’s conclusion that the stop became an emergency when Hill was dragged by Mitchell’s vehicle when he grabbed Mitchell’s hand through the open door in attempting to prevent him from driving off. She argues the officer created the emergency and instead should have released Mitchell’s hand and stepped away.

 

Northwest Bank & Trust v. Pershing Hill Lofts, et al.

Scheduled for oral argument Nov. 12, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did the Scott County District Court err in dismissing a bank’s breach-of-contract claim against a real estate developer?

[Disclosure: Nyemaster Goode attorneys David Bower and Dana Hempy represent Northwest Bank & Trust Co.]

Pershing Hill Lofts, John M. Carroll, and John G. Ruhl seek further review of a Dec. 4, 2024, Iowa Court of Appeals ruling reversing and remanding the Scott County District Court’s summary judgment dismissal of Northwest Bank & Trust Co.’s breach-of-contract claim against Pershing Hill Lofts and two of its managing members. The Court of Appeals concluded that because it could not say that Northwest Bank’s claim against the defendants of breach of contract fails as a matter of law, it reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Northwest Bank’s breach-of-contract claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals also reversed the district court’s judgment on Northwest Bank’s fraudulent misrepresentation claims and remanded for a new trial on that claim because the district court excluded the signed financing proposal and any reference to the exclusivity clause as a binding agreement.

 

In re: the Marriage of Matthew Kraus and Molly Kraus

Scheduled for oral argument Nov. 13, 9 a.m.

Question: Did the Delaware County District Court err in holding that dismissal of a frivolous pleading is not allowed as a sanction under Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure?

Molly Kraus seeks further review of a Jan. 9 Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming in part, reversing in part and remanding for further proceedings the Delaware County District Court’s ruling that Matthew Kraus filed what it held to be a frivolous petition to modify the custody decree for his children with Molly and imposing monetary sanctions. But the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Matthew’s petition as a sanction, holding that dismissal is not an authorized sanction under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413. In seeking further review, Molly argues the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the district court’s dismissal of Matthew’s petition, saying that to allow a frivolous pleading to proceed wastes the court’s and the other party’s time and money. Thus, Molly urges the Iowa Supreme Court to order Matthew to pay her appellate legal fees based on her argument that reversing Matthew’s baseless petition necessitated her further-review application to correct the Court of Appeals’ decision.

 

Rose v. Oakland Healthcare Management

Scheduled for oral argument Nov. 13, 9 a.m.

Question: Did a skilled nursing facility act with “recklessness or willful misconduct” with respect to its COVID-19 safety practices and cause a resident’s death as a result?

Jacob and Jeremy Rose, on behalf of the estate of their late father, filed suit against their father’s skilled nursing care facility, Oakland Manor, claiming the skilled nursing care facility acted recklessly in failing to properly implement COVID-19 safety protocols, which resulted in their father’s death due to COVID-19. Plaintiffs-appellants seek further review of a divided Feb. 19 Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming the Pottawattamie County District Court’s ruling granting the summary judgment to the defendant in their wrongful death suit against Oakland Manor. Two members of the three-judge Court of Appeals panel agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the Roses failed to present necessary evidence under Iowa Code Section 686D.6 that Oakland Manor engaged in “recklessness or willful misconduct.” A third member of the panel dissented saying the Roses made a showing of recklessness at the summary-judgment stage. The Roses argue in their application for further review that the Court of Appeals failed to properly interpret Iowa Code Chapter 686D.

 

In Re: the Marriage of Jason C. Owen and Alison A. Brinker

Scheduled for oral argument Nov. 13, 9 a.m.

Question: Did the Iowa Court of Appeals err in remanding to the district court a question regarding spousal support in a divorce decree?

Jason Owen seeks further review of a March 5 Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming and remanding the Audubon County District Court’s decree dissolving their marriage with regard to the trial court’s holdings on the value of Jason’s business, the couple’s farmland, and Alison Brinker’s spousal support. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court’s conclusions on all questions except for Alison’s award of spousal support. In his application for further review Jason argues the Court of Appeals erred on the question of Alison’s spousal support.

 

State v. Tolbert

Scheduled for oral argument Nov. 13, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Should a Scott County man convicted of murder get a new trial because of a prosecutor’s conflict?

Sherral Jermaine Tolbert appeals from his second-degree murder conviction by a Scott County jury. Tolbert argues the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter and in giving acquittal instructions, and that it erred in denying his motion for a mistrial after the State introduced punishment during jury selection. Tolbert argues he should be granted a new trial based on a conflict of interests because the assistant county attorney trying the case was employed by the Davenport Public Defender’s Office when Tolbert’s case originated.

 

Kelchner v. CRST Expedited, et al.

Scheduled for oral argument Nov. 13, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Do Iowa courts have jurisdiction to hear a suit by a Florida resident against a motor carrier based in Indiana?

Harley Kelchner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, brought suit in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Iowa against CRST Expedited, CRST Specialized Transportation, CRST Lincoln Sales, and John Smith alleging violations of Iowa’s Business Opportunity Promotions Act. CRST Specialized is an Indiana-incorporated motor carrier with its principal place of business in Indiana; Kelchner lives in Florida and contracted with CRST Specialized as an independent contractor in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and sued in Iowa. The federal trial court denied CRST Specialized’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction but certified this question to the Iowa Supreme Court: “Under Iowa law, does a foreign corporation consent to the personal jurisdiction of the Iowa courts by registering to do business in Iowa and appointing an agent for service of process in Iowa when a plaintiff then serves the foreign corporation’s designated agent?”

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2025-26