UPDATES & ANALYSIS

4.14

Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in seven cases April 15 and 16

by Rox Laird | April 14, 2025

The Iowa Supreme Court will hear arguments in seven cases April 15 and 16. Two other cases will be submitted to the Court without oral argument. Following are brief summaries of the April cases with the exception of one attorney discipline case. Go to On Brief’s “Cases in the Pipeline” page to read briefs filed in these cases.

 

Brodie, et al. v. Foxhoven, et al.

Scheduled for oral argument April 15, 7 p.m. Oral arguments in this case will be heard at the Shaw Center for the Performing Arts at Graceland University, 1 University Place, in Lamoni.

Question: Were former employees of a State-run hospital for persons with severe disabilities wrongly fired for reporting what they saw as “unconstitutional abuse, ‘experimentation,’ and torture of persons with disabilities while in the care of the State”?

Five former employees of the Glenwood Resource Center appeal the Mills County District Court’s interlocutory order granting the State’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiffs’ wrongful-discharge claims against the Glenwood Resource Center, two former administrators of the State-run facility, the Iowa Department of Human Services, and two former directors for the department. The five plaintiff-appellants argue on appeal that the district court erred in dismissing their wrongful discharge claims based on its conclusion they did not identify a “clearly defined and well-recognized public policy” of the State of Iowa, nor did they cite any specific statutes or regulations to allege any of the protected activities. On appeal, they argue that protection of persons with disabilities from the State’s actions at the Glenwood Resource Center, which included unconstitutional abuse, “experimentation,” and torture of persons with disabilities while in the care of the State, is “a clearly defined and well-recognized public policy” under Iowa law, federal law, and the post-WWII Nuremberg Code.

An amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiff-appellants was filed with the Court by VOR, Inc., which identifies itself as a nationwide, nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to fighting for high quality care and human rights for all people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

 

LS Power Midcontinent and Southwest Transmission v. State of Iowa

Scheduled for oral argument April 16, 9 a.m.

Question: Did the Polk County District Court exceed its authority by issuing an injunction blocking federally approved electric transmission projects in Iowa?

The State, the Iowa Utilities Commission, and the commission’s chair—Erik Helland—appeal the Polk County District Court’s ruling granting summary judgment in part to LS Power and the court’s injunction based on its conclusion that the Legislature’s action in enacting Iowa Code section 478.16, which governs federally approved electric transmission projects, violated both the title and the single-subject requirements of Article III, section 29 of the Iowa Constitution. The State and the Commission (formerly known as the Iowa Utilities Board) argue on appeal that the district court’s injunction erred in doing more than preventing future injury to the plaintiffs but by also seeking to rectify LS Power’s claim of past injury. Intervenor-appellants ITC Midwest and MidAmerican Energy raise similar claims on appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court and further argue that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue a retroactive injunction blocking the Iowa electric utilities from working on certain Iowa transmission projects approved under a federally regulated process.

Amicus curiae briefs were filed with the Court by Midcontinent Independent System Operator Inc. (MISO) in support of intervenor-appellants ITC Midwest and MidAmerican Energy Co. and by the Resale Power Group of Iowa in support of plaintiffs-appellees LS Power Midcontinent and Southwest Transmission.

 

Robinson v. Central Iowa Power Cooperative, et al.

Scheduled for oral argument April 16, 9 a.m.

Question: Is a “downhill” property owner liable for damage caused when it unilaterally cut and diverted an “uphill” neighbor’s drainage tile line?

Martin, Thomas, Laura, and Paula Robinson appeal the Linn County District Court’s ruling on summary judgment that defendant-appellee Central Iowa Power Cooperative properly ordered the cutting and diversion of a drainage tile line that drains the Robinsons’ land and that the Robinsons have no right to repair or maintain this tile or to retain their drain route. The Robinsons argue on appeal that defendant-appellee Central Iowa Power Cooperative should be held liable for damaging the plaintiff-appellants’ drainage tile. They urge the Court to hold that they have a dominant easement right to drain their property through existing tile over their downhill neighboring property.

 

In The Matter of Property Seized for Forfeiture from Bitcoin Depot Operating

Scheduled for oral argument April 16, 9 a.m.

[Disclosure: Nyemaster Goode attorneys Matthew A. McGuire, Kevin Collins, and Roy Leaf represent the appellant Bitcoin Depot Operating.]

Question: Did the Linn County District Court wrongly order that cash seized from a bitcoin ATM machine be returned to the woman who made a deposit and who claimed she was coerced into doing so by a scammer?

Bitcoin Depot Operating appeals the Linn County District Court’s order that $14,100 in cash the Linn County Sheriff seized from a Bitcoin Depot ATM machine be returned to the woman—Carrie Carlson—who made the cash deposit to purchase bitcoin for deposit in a digital wallet because she claimed she was coerced by a scammer into making the cash deposit. Bitcoin Depot filed an application in district court for return of the seized property. Carlson moved to intervene in the case and filed her own application for return of seized property in a separate case. The district court consolidated cases and concluded Carlson was entitled to the seized funds on grounds that her agreement with Bitcoin Depot when she made the cash deposit in the Bitcoin Depot ATM machine was voidable due to duress. In this appeal from the district court’s decision in the consolidated cases, Bitcoin Depot argues the district court erred in finding that the agreement between Carlson and Bitcoin Depot was voidable due to duress and in failing to order the return of the seized $14,100—Bitcoin Depot’s property—to Bitcoin Depot.

 

In The Matter of Property Seized for Forfeiture From Shelby Cason and In The Matter of Property Seized for Forfeiture from Bitcoin Depot Operating

Will be submitted to the Court April 16 without oral argument.

[Disclosure: Nyemaster Goode attorneys Matthew A. McGuire, Kevin Collins, and Roy Leaf represent the appellant Bitcoin Depot Operating.]

Question: Did the Linn County District Court wrongly order that cash seized from a bitcoin ATM machine be returned to the man who made a deposit and who claimed he was coerced into doing so by a scammer?

Bitcoin Depot Operating appeals the Linn County District Court’s order that $14,800 in cash the Linn County Sheriff seized from a Bitcoin Depot ATM machine be returned to the man—Shelby Cason—who made the cash deposit to purchase bitcoin for deposit in a digital wallet because he claimed he was coerced by a scammer into making the cash deposit. Cason filed an application in district court for return of the seized property. Bitcoin Depot moved to intervene in the case and filed its own application for return of seized property in a separate case. The district court consolidated cases and concluded Cason was entitled to the seized funds on grounds that his agreement with Bitcoin Depot when he made the cash deposit in the Bitcoin Depot ATM machine was voidable due to duress. In this appeal from the district court’s decision in the consolidated cases, Bitcoin Depot argues the district court erred in finding that the agreement between Cason and Bitcoin Depot was voidable due to duress and in failing to order the return of the seized $14,800—Bitcoin Depot’s property—to Bitcoin Depot.

 

Rhonda C. Lucas v. Peter J. Warhol and Progressive Direct Insurance Co.

Scheduled for oral argument April 16, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Was alternative delivery of service to a defendant’s counsel in a negligence suit proper where the defendant was homeless and unavailable to accept notice by mail?

Peter Warhol appeals the Polk County District Court’s order granting plaintiff-appellee Rhonda C. Lucas’ motion for alternate service for her negligence suit against Warhol for injuries in a vehicle accident. Because Warhol is homeless and Lucas had been unsuccessful in serving him, the district court granted Lucas the ability to serve Warhol’s defense counsel as an alternative method of service. The district court said its order was necessary because Warhol “spent considerable time, effort and presumably money attempting to evade service and thus potential liability for alleged actions underpinning this lawsuit,” adding that if it found otherwise, “every nonresident defendant involved in a motor vehicle accident in Iowa could stop, hold, decline or ignore altogether mail and then claim homelessness.“ On appeal, Warhol argues the district court erred in granting the motion for alternate service because there was no delivery offered to Warhol, or an opportunity for Warhol to refuse delivery, because he was not present at the locations. And, Warhol argues, the record contained no facts suggesting he evaded service or was engaged in misleading conduct.

 

McClure v. Corteva Agriscience

Scheduled for oral argument April 16, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did the Keokuk County District Court properly grant summary judgment to a plaintiff who claimed his employer discriminated against him on the basis of age and disability?

Corteva Agriscience seeks further review of a July 24, 2024, Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming in part and reversing in part a Keokuk County District Court ruling granting summary judgment to McClure on his claims against the company alleging age and disability discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. The Court of Appeals held that genuine issues of material fact exist on his age and disability discrimination claims but it affirmed the trial court on the retaliation and hostile work environment claims. In its application for further review, Corteva argues the Court of Appeals erred on several counts, including in modifying the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Feeback v. Swift Pork Co. by adding “reasonableness” to the analysis and by shifting the burden to the employer to demonstrate the absence of a dispute as to whether management held an honest belief that the employee was guilty of the conduct justifying the discharge.

 

State v. Amble and Mandracchia

Scheduled for oral argument April 16, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did the Polk County District Court correctly declare unconstitutional Iowa Code section 808.16, which says no person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage placed outside the home?

The State appeals the Polk County District Court’s order suppressing evidence obtained by law enforcement officers in a search of trash bags left for collection outside the residence of Charles Amble and Jon Mandraccia in an investigation leading to charges against Amble and Mandraccia for possession with intent to deliver marijuana. The district court held that Iowa Code section 808.16 is unconstitutional under the Iowa Supreme court’s 2021 decision in State v. Wright. Section 808.16, which says no person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage placed outside the home as a matter of Iowa public policy, was enacted by the Iowa Legislature in response to the Wright decision. The State argues that the district court erred in holding section 808.16 unconstitutional, but in the alternative if the statute is unconstitutional under Wright, the State asks the Court to overrule that decision.

An amicus curiae brief in support of the State was filed with the Court by 28 Iowa State Senators.

 

State v. Cooley

Will be submitted to the Court April 16 without oral argument.

Question: Was a Linn County man improperly convicted of failure to register as a sex offender because he was unable to comply with the registration requirement because the Sheriff’s Office was closed to the public due to the COVID-19 pandemic?

Ronald Cooley seeks further review of a Jan. 9, 2025, Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming his conviction by a Linn County jury for failure to register as a sex offender, second offense. Cooley argued on appeal that his conviction should be reversed because he was unable to comply with the statutory requirement because the Linn County Sheriff’s Office was closed to the public due to the COVID-19 pandemic at the time of his violation. In his application for further review Cooley argues the Court of appeals erred in holding that he failed to preserve the issue of his claim that Linn County’s decision to close the sheriff’s office to the public without legislative authority violated separation of powers under the Iowa Constitution; erred in holding that the district court’s jury instruction was proper; and erred in holding that there was sufficient evidence supports his conviction.

 

 

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2024-25