UPDATES & ANALYSIS

Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in five cases Jan. 21

by Rox Laird | January 17, 2025

The Iowa Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in five cases Jan. 21, and two cases will be submitted to the Court without oral argument. Following are brief summaries of those cases.

Waterloo Community School District v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.

 Scheduled for oral argument Jan. 21, 9 a.m.

Question: Is an insurance company required to pay to rebuild a school outside of the covered area where a roof collapsed? [Note: This case was originally scheduled for oral argument in November but continued by agreement of the parties and the Court.]

The Waterloo Community School District appeals the Polk County District Court’s decision granting summary judgment to Employers Mutual Casualty (EMC) and holding that EMC’s policy did not cover rebuilding an elementary school outside of the immediate vicinity of a classroom where the roof collapsed after a snowstorm. The roof collapsed because mortar in the middle load-bearing layer of the exterior walls had deteriorated to the point that the walls could no longer support the weight of the snow and ice that had collected on the roof, and Waterloo’s building code required extensive rebuilding outside the specific area of collapse. The district court concluded the insurance policy excluded coverage for the repairs required outside the area of the initial roof collapse. The school district argues on appeal that because there was a covered loss, EMC’s policy provides additional coverage for repairs to bring the school into compliance with the city’s building code.

State v. Smith

Scheduled for oral argument Jan. 21, 9 a.m.

Question: Did the district court err in sentencing a convicted sex offender to pay a $1,370 fine and barring his possession of firearms?

Taylor Smith appeals his sentence for third-degree sexual abuse following his bench-trial conviction by the Woodbury County District Court. Smith argues the district court abused its discretion when it sentenced him to pay a $1,370 fine because the minimum fine that applied to the offense at the time it was committed was $1,000. Smith also argues the district court’s order prohibiting his use and possession of firearms, offensive weapons, and ammunition violates his rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 1A of the Iowa Constitution.

Christensen v. Iowa District Court for Story County

Scheduled for oral argument Jan. 21, 9 a.m.

Question: Did the district court exceed its authority in issuing a monetary sanction against an assistant county attorney for his conduct in prosecuting a criminal case?

Theron Christensen, assistant county attorney for Story County, appeals the Story County District Court’s imposition of monetary sanctions against him under Iowa Code section 619.19 and Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.413 for his actions in the course of his prosecution of an OWI case. The district court entered an order finding Christensen engaged in sanctionable conduct and imposed a sanction of $2,072. The district court identified three areas of sanctionable conduct: A pre-trial motion he filed was not justified in law or fact; the case was dismissed for an improper purpose; and Christensen engaged in sanctionable conduct in two prior cases. Amicus curiae briefs were filed with the Court by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird on behalf of the State of Iowa, and by the Iowa County Attorneys’ Association in support of Christensen, and by the State Public Defender in support of the district court.

Doe v. Iowa District Court for Polk County

Will be submitted to the Court Jan. 21 without oral argument.

Question: Does Iowa’s statute providing for expungement of criminal records allow for expungement of a parole revocation proceeding?

J. Doe appeals the Polk County District Court’s denial of his application to expunge two parole violation cases related to charges of driving while barred that were subsequently dismissed and expunged. Doe argues the parole violation cases were “otherwise dismissed” under Iowa Code Chapter 901C and thus should be expunged as well. The district court denied Doe’s application to expunge records of those cases, saying the parole violation charges resulted from an administrative procedure within the executive branch and are therefore not eligible for expungement under Chapter 901C.

Smith v. City of Cedar Rapids

Scheduled for oral argument Jan. 21, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did a police department violate Iowa’s “Peace Officers, Public Safety, and Emergency Personnel Bill of Rights” by denying an officer’s request for results of an investigation into an internal complaint against him?

Antoine Smith appeals the Linn County District Court’s decision granting summary judgment to the Cedar Rapids Police Department in Smith’s case against the department asserting the department violated Iowa Code 80F, commonly known as the “Peace Officers, Public Safety, and Emergency Personnel Bill of Rights.” Smith argues the police department violated the statute by denying his request for the results of its investigation and conducting a hearing on the matter without his having had the opportunity to respond to the completed investigation report. The district court held that the department complied with the statute by releasing the results of the investigation after it was approved by the chief of police and disciplinary action was taken against Smith. On appeal, Smith argues the statute requires that results of an investigation be released when it is completed, not after it is reviewed and approved by the police chief.

Burton v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Co.

Scheduled for oral argument Jan. 21, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did the district court err in ordering production of psychological test material to the defendant in a civil suit?

Jessenia Burton and her parents appeals the Polk County District Court’s decision granting West Bend Mutual Insurance Co.’s motion to compel the production of psychological tests and data from a neuropsychologist’s evaluation of Burton in her underinsured motorist and medical payment claim against West Bend for a brain injury she suffered in a car collision. The district court ordered Burton to request that the neuropsychologist deliver the information to West Bend, its attorneys, and their non-psychologist expert. Burton argues on appeal that the neuropsychologist’s evaluation can be disclosed only to another licensed psychologist under Iowa Code section 228.9 and related portions of the Iowa Administrative Code. Amicus curiae briefs were filed by the court by the Iowa Psychological Association and by Pearson Clinical Assessment in support of Burton.

State v. Pirie

Will be submitted to the Court Jan. 21 without oral argument.

Questions: Is an appellant entitled to a new trial due to the unavailability of a material witness and the district court conducting a remote sentencing without obtaining his waiver of the right to in-person sentencing?

Jason Pirie seeks further review of an Aug. 21, 2024 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming his conviction and sentence by Green County District Court following his conviction by a jury for third-degree theft. Pirie raised five issues on appeal: 1) the judge should have granted his motion to recuse based on the judge’s prior representation of Pirie in two criminal matters and a recent statement made by the judge that raised a question regarding his impartiality; 2) the district court erred in allowing hearsay testimony from a police officer during the criminal trial; 3) the district court should have granted his motion for new trial based on the unavailability of a material witness; 4) the district court violated his rights by conducting a remote sentencing proceeding without first obtaining his waiver of the right to in-person sentencing; and 5) the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a consecutive prison term for the crime of stealing $55 worth of alcohol. The Court of Appeals, in a per curiam decision, disagreed with Pirie on all five claims. One member of the three-member Court of Appeals panel filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority in part while dissenting on the issues of hearsay and remote sentencing.

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25