The case involved a dispute over workers' compensation liability for the death of Justin Faur, a farm employee and volunteer firefighter who died from methane gas inhalation while attempting to rescue his employer from a manure pit. Grinnell Mutual, the insurer for the farm, sought contribution from Travelers Insurance, the insurer for the volunteer fire department, arguing that Faur was acting in his capacity as a volunteer firefighter at the time of his injury under Iowa Code section 85.61(7)(a). The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the fire department's insurer shared responsibility for the benefits, interpreting the statute to require that a volunteer firefighter acquire knowledge of a summons to duty before being considered in the course of employment. The core reasoning centered on the statutory language defining when a volunteer firefighter enters the course of employment upon being summoned, distinguishing it from the moment the dispatch occurs.
The case concerned whether an Iowa law enforcement officer could satisfy the statutory "written request" requirement for a breath test under the implied-consent law by displaying the request on a laptop computer screen to a driver arrested for operating while intoxicated. The district court suppressed the resulting breath-test evidence, ruling that the electronic display did not constitute a written request because no paper form was shown to the driver. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed, concluding that a computer screen satisfies the requirement since the statute does not specify a paper format, the text was visible to the driver, and electronic documents qualify as writings consistent with legislative intent. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
The case concerned whether a police officer's request for a breath specimen, displayed on a computer screen using an electronic form, satisfied the "written request" requirement under Iowa Code section 321J.6(1). After being arrested for suspected drunk driving, Jennifer Madison refused the test by marking "Refuse" on the touch screen but later moved to suppress evidence of the refusal, arguing she had not been given an opportunity to read the full text and that a screen did not qualify as writing. The district court denied the motion, convicted Madison of operating while intoxicated, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the electronic request met the statutory requirement based on its analysis in the companion case State v. Fischer.
The case involved the Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board charging attorney Larry J. Cohrt with violations of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for neglecting client matters in two separate lawsuits. In one case, Cohrt failed to file a required bond, ignored discovery requests, and dismissed the lawsuit without client authorization; in the other, he missed discovery deadlines leading to sanctions and dismissal. The court found that Cohrt violated the professional code through neglect and misrepresentation, considering his prior admonition and false statements as aggravating factors. It decided to impose an indefinite suspension of not less than three months, reasoning that multiple instances of neglect compounded by dishonesty warrant this sanction.
This case arose from a motor vehicle accident on Interstate 80 during a winter storm when one driver's disabled vehicle in the median contributed to a collision injuring passenger Martin Waters, who then sued the State of Iowa along with the drivers for negligence in failing to remove the obstruction, clear snow and ice, warn of hazards, and protect the public. The State moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds including lack of duty, discretionary function immunity under the Iowa Tort Claims Act, and insufficient notice. The district court granted summary judgment on some claims but entered a subsequent order directing the State to proceed to trial on others; the court of appeals affirmed that order, but the Iowa Supreme Court vacated the appellate decision and affirmed the district court, holding that the summary judgment ruling left remaining claims for trial based on its plain language and scope.
The case involved allegations against Iowa attorney Jesse M. Marzen for violating professional conduct rules by having a sexual relationship with a client, misrepresenting facts to a judge, and disclosing confidential client information to the media. The Iowa Supreme Court, after de novo review, dismissed the charges of sexual misconduct and misrepresentation due to insufficient evidence but found that Marzen had improperly disclosed client confidences without consent. The court imposed an indefinite suspension of Marzen's license not to exceed six months, emphasizing the importance of maintaining client confidentiality in attorney-client relationships.
