UPDATES & ANALYSIS

10.07

Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in eight cases Oct. 8-10

by Rox Laird | October 7, 2024

The Iowa Supreme Court will hear arguments in eight cases Oct. 8-10. Six other cases will be submitted to the Court without argument. Following are brief summaries of the October cases. [Go to On Brief’s “Cases in the Pipeline” page to read briefs filed in these cases.]

 

Summit Carbon Solutions LLC v. Kent Kasischke

Scheduled for argument in the Historic Supreme Court Chamber at the Iowa State Capitol on Oct. 8, 7 p.m.

Question: Is Iowa’s statute allowing a pipeline company to enter and survey private property for a pipeline project an unconstitutional taking?

Kent Kasischke appeals the Hardin County District Court’s order finding that Iowa Code section 479B.15 that allows a pipeline company to enter private land for the purpose of surveying is constitutional; that Summit Carbon Solutions qualifies as a pipeline company as defined by Iowa Code section 479B.2; and that Summit complied with Iowa Code section 479B.15 by serving Kasischke with notice of the required informational meeting and Summit’s intent to conduct surveys on Kasischke’s land regarding Summit’s proposed underground CO2 pipeline.

Amicus curiae briefs in support of Summit Carbon Solutions were filed with the Court by the Iowa Utility Association and Iowa Association of Electric Cooperatives, and by the Liquid Energy Pipeline Association and the American Petroleum Institute.

 

Avenarius v. State of Iowa

Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 9, 9 a.m.

Question: Did a liability waiver signed by a Dubuque police officer relieve the State of liability for the officer’s injuries from an accidental shooting at a law-enforcement firearms training school?

The State appeals a Feb. 7 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming the Polk County District Court’s decision denying the State’s motion for summary judgment in Katherine Avenarius’s suit against the State for a self-inflicted gunshot wound she suffered while attending the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy firearms instructor school, claiming the injury was the result of an instructor’s advice. In affirming the district court, the Court of Appeals disagreed with the State’s argument that Avenarius signed a “clear and unequivocal” waiver and release of liability. In its application for further review, the State argues the Court of Appeals’s opinion imposes an unreasonably stringent standard for valid liability waivers.

 

State v. Fenton

Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 9, 9 a.m.

Question: Was there necessary evidence to convict a defendant of solicitation of commercial sex?

Corey Fenton seeks further review of a Jan. 10 Iowa Court of Appeals decision that partially affirmed his Polk County jury conviction for solicitation of commercial sexual activity, vacated in part his sentence, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals held the verdict was supported by substantial evidence but that the district court applied the incorrect standard in denying Fenton’s motion for a new trial and imposed an illegal sentence by requiring Fenton to complete the sex-offender treatment program as a term of his sentence. In his application for further review Fenton argues the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the district court’s admission of a photographic exhibit, and it erred in concluding evidence established that something of value was given, promised, or received in exchange for a sex act and that Fenton enticed, coerced, recruited an individual to engage in commercial sexual activity.

 

State v. Staton

Will be submitted to the Court Oct. 9 without oral argument.

Question: Was there substantial evidence that a defendant was guilty of sexual abuse and incest?

Chad Staton seeks review of a Nov. 21, 2023, Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming Staton’s conviction by a Black Hawk County jury for sexual abuse in the second degree, sexual abuse in the third degree, and incest. The Court of Appeals held that the victim’s testimony about Staton’s sex acts with her was sufficient to support his conviction; the victim’s testimony about an earlier assault was properly admitted by the district court; and there was no abuse of discretion by the district court in Staton’s sentencing procedure.

 

Brendeland, et al. v. Iowa Department of Transportation

 

Will be submitted to the Court Oct. 9 without oral argument.

Question: Did a district court properly dismiss property owners’ suit claiming the State would take an excessive amount of their property for a highway intersection project?

Merle Brendeland, Janis Brendeland, Megan Russell, and Joseph Russell appeal the Story County District Court’s decision granting the Department of Transportation’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ combined cases claiming the Department would take an excessive amount of their property through eminent domain for the Interstate 35-Highway 210 intersection reconstruction project, resulting in the property owners’ loss of commercial highway access. The plaintiffs-appellants argue the district court erred in holding that Iowa Code section 6A.24, which governs judicial review of eminent domain authority, provides the exclusive remedy in this case. They argue their claims should be heard under common law, which is not abrogated or superseded by section 6A.24.

 

State v. Kieffer

Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 9, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Does a district court’s order prohibiting a defendant convicted of domestic abuse from possessing weapons violate his rights under the federal and Iowa constitutions?

Ezekiel Kieffer appeals from his conviction by a Black Hawk County jury for domestic abuse assault. Among other claims, Kieffer argues on appeal the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of a domestic relationship between Kieffer and the alleged victim as domestic abuse is defined in Iowa Code section 236.2(2); and the district court’s prohibition of Kieffer’s right to possess firearms violates both the U.S. and Iowa constitutions. In addition to his rights under the Second Amendment, Kieffer argues the prohibition violates his rights under Article I, section 1A of the Iowa Constitution, which provides “[t]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes this right to be a fundamental individual right. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.” Kieffer argues the firearms prohibition does not survive strict scrutiny.

 

Cianzio v. Iowa State University, et al.

Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 9, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Is an employee claiming sex discrimination entitled to back pay for the entire period of discrimination or just for the two years preceding the filing of her complaint?

Silvia Cianzio appeals the Polk County District Court’s dismissal in part of her sex discrimination claim under the Iowa Civil Rights Act for recovery of back pay based on her assertion that Iowa State University paid Cianzio less than male ISU professors who performed work equal to hers. The district court held that Cianzio was limited to recovering damages under Iowa Code section 216.6A to the two years preceding the filing of her administrative complaint and the trial court applied the two-year statute of limitations in Iowa Code section 614.1(8) as it applies to claims for unpaid wages. Cianzio argues on appeal that she is entitled to recover damages for the entire period of discrimination dating back to 2009.

 

State v. Brown

Will be submitted to the Court Oct. 9 without oral argument.

Question: Did an officer violate a suspect’s Fourth Amendment rights by unnecessarily extending a traffic stop to search the vehicle?

Tyre Brown seeks further review of a Dec. 20, 2023, Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming the Polk County District Court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop in which a gun was found in the car. Brown argued his detention at the traffic stop was a Fourth Amendment violation because his detention was extended beyond the time necessary to investigate the traffic violation. Brown argues in his application for further review that suppression of the gun found under the passenger seat was required because the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop and search the vehicle in which Brown was a passenger.

 

1000 Friends of Iowa, et al. v. Polk County Board of Supervisors

Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 10, 9 a.m.

Question: Do plaintiffs challenging a county zoning change lack standing to bring the action?

The nonprofit land preservation group 1000 Friends of Iowa and several landowners appeal the Polk County District Court’s dismissal of their challenge to the legality of the Polk County Board of Supervisors’ decision to rezone an agricultural parcel for a mixed use development. The plaintiffs-appellants assert the rezoning violates the county’s 2050 Comprehensive Plan and the county’s zoning ordinance regarding agricultural land. The appellants argue on appeal that the district court erred in concluding they lacked standing and that the heightened pleading requirements imposed by Iowa Code section 670.4A apply to this action. They argue section 670.4A, which bars claims for money damages, does not apply in cases in which neither tort claims nor monetary damages are plead.

 

Dupaco Community Credit Union v. Linn County District Court

Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 10, 9 a.m.

Question: Did a credit union and its attorneys violate professional standards by failing to properly investigate an estate debt collection action?

Dupaco Community Credit Union and its attorneys seek further review of a March 6 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming the Linn County District Court’s sanctions of $14,387.60 imposed against Dupaco and its two attorneys for violating their professional obligations when they filed pleadings without reasonably inquiring into facts asserted in an estate debt collection action. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that Dupaco’s attorneys failed to properly investigate the claim that the estate’s notice of disallowance was never mailed, received, or handled by anyone associated with the credit union. Because the notice had in fact been sent by first class and certified mail to the credit union’s agent, the Court of Appeals agreed with the district court in finding that false statements made by the attorneys violated Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413 and Iowa Code section 619.19

 

State v. Mumford

Will be submitted to the Court without oral argument Oct. 10.

Question: Did a K-9 drug dog handler trespass by allowing the dog to place its paws on a suspect’s vehicle and stick its nose through an open window?

Ashlee Mumford appeals the Madison County District Court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained in a traffic stop and she challenges her conviction for possession of marijuana saying the State failed to provide sufficient proof that she possessed marijuana. On appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court, Mumford argues a Winterset police officer lacked probable cause to stop and search her vehicle, that the K-9 drug dog trespassed onto her vehicle by placing its paws on the door and by sticking its nose into the car through an open window, and that the State produced no expert opinion or forensic lab results that the substance seized from Mumford was marijuana.

 

Smith v. Iowa Association of Community College Trustees, et al.

Scheduled for oral argument Oct. 10, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did a community college properly deny a general contractor’s request for payment from funds withheld prior to completion of the construction project?

Des Moines Area Community College (DMACC) appeals a Feb. 7 Iowa Court of Appeals decision reversing the Polk County District Court’s denial of Graphite Construction’s motion to compel DMACC to release “retainage” funds for a construction project withheld prior to completion of the project. The district court held that release of funds withheld under Iowa Code section 573.16(2) is not required until after the project is completed and accepted. Graphite argues that DMACC was obligated to release the full amount sought by Graphite under section 573.16(2) once it filed a surety bond on the project. The Court of Appeals held that Graphite’s request for release of the full value of the surety bond from the retainage fund was timely and appropriate under section 573.16(2) and that DMACC cannot rely on section 573.28 to withhold some retainage based on the value of uncompleted labor and materials.

An amicus curiae brief filed with the Court in support of DMACC was filed by Community Colleges of Iowa, Iowa Association of School Boards, Iowa State Association of Counties, and Iowa League of Cities.

 

Murillo v. State of Iowa

Will be submitted to the Court Oct. 10 without oral argument.

Question: Was a convicted sex offender’s application for modification of his sex-offender registry requirement improperly denied?

Daniel Murillo seeks further review of a Feb. 21 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming the Polk County District Court’s denial of his application under Iowa Code section 692A.128 to modify the requirement that he register as a sex offender. The district court concluded Murillo did not successfully complete sex-offender treatment prior to completion of his prison sentence based on his insincere admissions of guilt. Agreeing with the district court, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court was not required to accept that just because Murillo completed treatment the completion was successful.

 

State v. Chawech

Will be submitted to the Court Oct. 10 without oral argument.

Question: Did the State present sufficient evidence against a defendant charged with assault with intent to cause serious injury with a dangerous weapon?

Wichang Chawech seeks further review of a divided Dec 20, 2023, Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming his conviction by a Polk jury for assault with intent to inflict serious injury, willful injury causing serious injury, and intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent to injure or provoke fear. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part the district court’s sentence of Chawech to a 22-year prison term but vacated the sentence in part saying the trial court failed to merge two of the counts. In a dissent, one member of the three-judge Court of Appeals panel argued the district court erred in suspending fines it imposed without placing Chawech on probation.

 

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25