Arthur A. McGiverin

The case involved Midwest Janitorial Supply Corporation and its officers suing former vice president and director David Greenwood and his new company, alleging that Greenwood breached fiduciary duties by preparing to form a competing janitorial supply business while still serving as an officer and director. The district court dismissed the claims after a bench trial based on findings that Greenwood's pre-resignation activities were limited to brief preparations such as contacting a realtor and investigating equipment and financing. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a director or officer is not liable for mere preparations to compete unless those acts cause a discrete harm to the corporation beyond the competition that eventually occurs, and no such harm was shown here given the short timeframe and lack of evidence linking any actions to diverted business.

business & regulatory

The case concerned disciplinary proceedings against Iowa attorney Robert M. Sherman for his handling of a client's domestic relations matter involving potential common-law marriage, custody, and support issues. Sherman neglected the case by failing to take action over many months despite receiving a retainer, leading the client to hire new counsel, and he also failed to respond to the Ethics Board's inquiries about the resulting complaint despite multiple extensions. The Iowa Supreme Court, reviewing de novo, agreed with the Grievance Commission that the evidence and Sherman's admissions proved violations of disciplinary rules DR 6-101(A)(3), DR 7-101(A)(2), DR 1-102(A)(5), and DR 1-102(A)(6). The court imposed a public reprimand, factoring in Sherman's prior admonitions and reprimands for similar conduct along with considerations of deterrence and public protection.

procedurefamily law

The case concerned whether the City of Muscatine could file a personal judgment action against property owners to recover costs of demolishing a nuisance building on their property after the owners failed to respond to notices. The district court ruled in favor of the city under Iowa Code section 364.12(4), the court of appeals reversed, and the Iowa Supreme Court vacated the reversal and affirmed the district court judgment. The court reasoned that section 364.12(4) explicitly authorizes a city to seek reimbursement for nuisance abatement costs via civil action against the property owner, that section 446.20(2) did not apply or limit this remedy because the county held only a tax certificate and no deed had issued, and that the owners remained liable as title holders.

propertyprocedure

Pamela Kershner sued the City of Burlington, alleging that the city's fire department was negligent in responding to a fire at her home by dispatching only one truck and three firefighters, contrary to its written policy, which allowed the fire to spread and destroy the house. The district court granted the city's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, concluding that the claim was barred by the immunity provision of Iowa Code section 670.4(11) for acts or omissions in connection with an emergency response. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the statutory language plainly grants immunity whenever a claim arises from conduct tied to an emergency response, without regard to internal policies or the adequacy of the response.

torts & liability

Bernard Mauk petitioned to correct an entry in Iowa's child abuse registry alleging that he had sexually abused his daughter L.M. in 1988; after the Department of Human Services denied the request, an administrative law judge held an evidentiary hearing but quashed Mauk's subpoenas for L.M. and his son J.M. to testify. The Iowa Supreme Court held that the ALJ erred in refusing to allow the children to be called as witnesses and reversed the district court and court of appeals decisions that had upheld the agency's action. The court reasoned that the ALJ's stated grounds for quashing the subpoenas—concerns about the children's memory and best interests—were not supported by substantial evidence in the record and that Mauk had a statutory right to present witnesses in the contested-case hearing on the registry correction. The case was remanded to the agency for a new hearing at which L.M. and J.M. would be permitted to testify.

family lawprocedure

The case involved parents suing the manufacturers of a smoke detector after a home fire killed one child and severely burned another, alleging that the detector was defective and failed to sound an alarm. A jury awarded the plaintiffs substantial compensatory and punitive damages on theories including negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranties. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting consumer complaints about other detectors failing to alarm and by submitting the issue of punitive damages to the jury. The court reasoned that the complaints were improperly admitted and that there was insufficient evidence of willful and wanton conduct by the defendants to support punitive damages.

torts & liability