UPDATES & ANALYSIS

3.25

Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in eight cases March 26 and 27

by Rox Laird | March 25, 2025

The Iowa Supreme Court will hear arguments in eight cases March 26 and 27. Two cases will be submitted to the Court without oral arguments. Following are summaries of the March arguments. Go to OnBrief’s Cases in the Pipeline page to read briefs filed in these cases.

 

Rheeder v. City of Marion, et al.

Scheduled for oral argument March 26, 9 a.m.

Questions:

• Should a district court have granted summary judgment to the City of Marion as being shielded from vicarious liability for a plaintiff’s sexual harassment claims against police department employees because the City exercised “reasonable care” to prevent the harassing behavior?
• Under what circumstances may individual employees of a plaintiff’s employer be held liable for claims of unlawful retaliation and hostile work environment?
• Did a district court err in considering evidence of an alleged harasser’s prior conduct in denying an individual sexual-harassment defendant’s motion for summary judgment directed?

The City of Marion and Marion Police Chief Joseph McHale; former Deputy Chief Douglas Slagle; and former Police Department employee Shellene Gray separately appeal the Linn County District Court’s order denying the Defendants’ various motions for summary judgment directed at claims by former Police Department employee Valerie Rheeder in her sexual harassment, retaliation, and hostile work environment suit against the city and the police department employees. Among their arguments on appeal, the defendant-appellants claim the district court should have concluded the City of Marion exercised “reasonable care” to promptly correct or prevent the harassing behavior under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton with regard to whether the city is vicariously liable for Rheeder’s employment claims against the city’s employees. The appellants urge the Court to reverse the district court’s order and grant summary judgment in favor of the city defendants.

 

State v. Clark

Scheduled for oral argument March 26, 9 a.m.

Question: Did sheriff’s deputies violate an OWI detainee’s right to contact her attorney while in custody by failing to accommodate her hearing impairment that limited her ability to clearly comprehend the officers’ commands?

Hope Clark seeks further review of a Sept. 18, 2024, Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming her conviction by a Des Moines County jury on a charge of operating while intoxicated. In her application for further review, Clark argues Des Moines County Sheriff’s deputies violated her right to contact an attorney. Clark told officers at the time of her arrest she wanted to contact an attorney, but she was not given that opportunity until after the jail booking process was completed and the Miranda and implied consent warnings were recited. No call was made because the officers took her statements and actions to mean she did not wish to call an attorney. Clark argues the officers failed to accommodate her profound hearing loss that limited her ability to clearly comprehend the officers’ commands and they did nothing to assist her by obtaining an interpreter to help her understand what the police officers were telling her and to assist her in making a phone call to an attorney.

 

State v. Gale

Will be submitted to the Court March 26 without oral argument.

Question: Was a convicted offender illegally sentenced for a second offense when the first offense was charged under a different criminal statute?

Vanessa Gale seeks further review of a Dec. 4, 2024, Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming her conviction by the Scott County District Court on two counts of possession of a controlled substance, second offense. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that Gale had been legally seized by police officers during a traffic stop, and it affirmed her sentence, disagreeing with her argument that she did not have a predicate conviction to justify a second-offense conviction. In her application for further review, Gale argues she was illegally detained without probable cause or reasonable articulable suspicion, and she argues the district court imposed illegal sentences under Iowa Code section 124.401 because her prior conviction under a different chapter of the Iowa Code does not qualify as a predicate conviction in this case.

 

Wilson v. Shenandoah Medical Center

Scheduled for oral argument March 26, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did the Page County District Court abuse its discretion in concluding plaintiffs in a medical malpractice case had good cause for missing the deadline for designating expert witnesses?

Douglas and Jane Wilson seek further review of a divided July 24, 2024, Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming the Page County District Court’s order denying the Shenandoah Medical Center’s motion for summary judgment in the Wilsons’ medical malpractice case for plaintiffs’ failure to timely file an expert witness designation. Two members of the three-judge Court of Appeals panel concluded the plaintiffs substantially complied with the requirement under Iowa Code section 668.11 that a plaintiff must within 180 days of the defendant’s answer certify to the court and the parties the names of expert witnesses in cases involving licensed professionals, unless the court extends the time of disclosure for good cause. The third member of the panel disagreed, saying he would reverse the district court, because the district court abused its discretion in concluding the Wilsons had good cause for their failure to file their expert certifications on time and thus erred in denying summary judgment to the defendant.

 

Venechuk nka Vandewalker v. Landherr

Scheduled for oral argument March 26, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Must a parent seeking to unilaterally modify a child-custody decree regarding the district where the child attends school petition the district court for sole custody?

Katie Venechuk nka Katie Vendewalker seeks further review of a divided May 22, 2024, Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming the Worth County District Court’s decision denying Vendewalker’s petition to modify the custody decree governing shared custody of her child with the child’s father, Gary Landherr, regarding the school district where the child attends school. Vandewalker moved to a neighboring school district where she wishes to enroll the child, which Landherr opposes. Two members of a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held that this case is controlled by the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2024 decision In re Marriage of Frazier, which said the only option to resolve a similar dispute between parents was to petition to modify the legal custody decree in which the filing party must seek modification to receive sole legal custody. Because Vandewalker did not seek modification to receive sole legal custody in order to make the school-enrollment decision unilaterally, two members of the Court of Appeals panel voted to affirm the district court’s dismissal of her modification petition. A third member of the panel dissented, saying the question of extending Frazier to cases such as this one should be left to the Iowa Supreme Court.

An amicus curiae brief in support of defendant-appellee Gary Landherr was filed with the Court by IowaFathers.

 

County Bank v. Shalla

Scheduled for oral argument March 27, 9 a.m.

Question: Did the Washington County District Court correctly hold that plaintiffs’ claims in tort were precluded by Iowa’s statute that says a credit agreement is not enforceable in contract law unless in writing?

Clinton and Michelle Shalla seek further review of a divided June 19, 2024, Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming the Washington County District Court’s decision granting summary judgment and a directed verdict as to the Shallas’ claims of fraud and conversion against County Bank and as to their claims of negligence and fraud against Chris Goerdt. Two members of the three-member Court of Appeals panel held that the district court properly found that their claims in tort against Peoples Trust and Savings Bank and Goerdt were precluded by Iowa Code section 535.17(1), which states: “A credit agreement is not enforceable in contract law by way of action or defense by any party unless a writing exists which contains all of the material terms of the agreement and is signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought.” The third member of the panel dissented in part from the majority, arguing that because the Shallas did not bring contract actions against Goerdt and Peoples Trust and instead asserted the torts of negligence and fraudulent misrepresentation, 535.17(1) does not apply because it bars actions only in contract law.

 

Dostart v. Columbia Insurance Group

Scheduled for oral argument March 27, 9 a.m.

Question: Did the Polk County District court properly deny a defendant insurance company’s motion for summary judgment in an insurance coverage dispute, finding the insurance company failed to show there is no genuine issue of material fact on whether its policy covered the plaintiffs’ underlying judgment?

Columbia Insurance Group seeks further review of an Oct. 30, 2024, Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming the Polk County District Court’s denial of summary judgment to Columbia, which argues it is not required to pay a judgment for consumer fraud that John and Deena Dostart won against Columbia’s insured. Columbia argues the insurance policy issued to the Dostarts’ homebuilder does not cover the Dostarts’ consumer-fraud judgment. Columbia filed an interlocutory appeal of the summary-judgment ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court, which transferred the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that Columbia failed to meet its summary-judgment burden to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

 

State v. McClain

Will be submitted to the Court March 27 without oral argument.

Question: Is a warrantless vehicle search justified when current technology allows an officer to obtain a watch warrant?

Amadeus McClain appeals following his conditional guilty plea in Buchanan County District Court to possession with the intent to deliver. McClain urges the Iowa Supreme Court to reverse the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained by a state trooper at a traffic stop because the State failed to establish the trooper had sufficient skills or training to detect the smell of marijuana. McClain also urges the Court to overrule its 1980 holding in State v. Olsen that a warrantless search of an automobile was justified by practical problems for police in obtaining a search warrant. McClain argues that with current technology officers can quickly obtain warrants and officers should be required to cite some other exigency than a vehicle’s inherent mobility to justify a warrantless search.

 

Bradshaw Renovations v. Graham

Scheduled for oral argument March 27, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did the Polk County District Court err with regard to what constitutes reckless conduct in awarding treble damages under the consumer fraud statute?

Bradshaw Renovations seeks further review of an Oct. 2, 2024, Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming a Polk County jury verdict rejecting Bradshaw Renovations’ breach-of-contract claim against Barry and Jacklynn Graham and finding for the Grahams on their counter-claims against Bradshaw Renovations for breach of contract and consumer fraud; and, Bradshaw Renovations appeals the Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the district court’s dismissal of Bradshaw Renovations’ unjust-enrichment and quantum-meruit claims. In seeking further review, Bradshaw Renovations argues the Court of Appeals erred with regard to what constitutes reckless conduct justifying an award of treble damages under the consumer fraud statute, and in entering a ruling in conflict with the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Poller v. Okoboji Classic Cars regarding what constitutes an “ascertainable loss” needed to prove a consumer fraud claim.

 

In the Matter of David James Hanson, Judicial Magistrate

Scheduled for oral argument March 27, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did a part-time magistrate violate canons of judicial ethics by refusing to sign an arrest warrant in a sexual abuse case based on a stereotypical belief of how a male sexual assault victim would react to an assault by a female, and by making racially disparaging remarks concerning a litigant who was to appear before him in a pending case?

The Judicial Qualifications Commission recommended the Iowa Supreme Court suspend part-time Fayette County Magistrate David J. Hanson for 90 days without pay and order that he participate in anger management and bias training. The Commission cited two incidents: In the first, Magistrate Hansen refused to sign an arrest warrant in a sexual abuse case based on a stereotypical belief of how a male sexual assault victim would react when a female assaults him, saying, “The boy will automatically think: ‘Alright! I’m gonna GET some!’.” In the second, Magistrate Hanson asked if a defendant was a “wetback? An illegal?” or if he had not committed other crimes, such as identity theft. The Commission concluded Magistrate Hanson’s conduct in both instances “would create in reasonable minds an adverse perception of honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge. That it occurred in a public setting would erode public confidence more than if it occurred in private.” The Commission found this amounted to a substantial violation of the canons of judicial ethics.

 

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25