Linda K. Neuman

In State v. Huss, the Iowa Supreme Court reviewed a district court's order continuing the commitment of Loren Huss, who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity for the 1986 murder of his girlfriend. After evaluating psychiatric testimony and Huss's institutional record, the court determined that while Huss remains mentally ill with bipolar affective disorder and antisocial personality disorder, the evidence failed to establish that he is currently dangerous to himself or others. The decision reversed the commitment order and directed Huss's release, emphasizing the statutory requirement under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.22(8) for proof of both mental illness and dangerousness, including consideration of recent overt acts.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a landowner who had participated in an earlier class action settlement with Williams Pipeline Company and WorldCom over the installation of fiber optic cable in underground pipelines on his property. The plaintiff sought to set aside the settlement judgment, claiming that the notices of the litigation and settlement violated due process because they did not clearly inform class members that both pipelines on the properties were at issue. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the challenge. The court held that the notices satisfied due process requirements because they reached all affected parties and conveyed sufficient information about the claims, the settlement terms including compensation amounts, and the opportunity to object at a fairness hearing. Any ambiguity regarding the pipelines did not render the notices constitutionally deficient, as recipients could reasonably investigate further based on the details provided.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a workers' compensation claimant who, after settling his claim with the insurer under Iowa Code section 85.35 by admitting a bona fide dispute over the work-related nature of his injuries, sued the insurer for bad-faith denial of benefits. The district court denied the claimant's request for default judgment due to improper notice and the insurer's timely answer, and granted summary judgment to the insurer on grounds of judicial estoppel. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the settlement's admission of a bona fide dispute precluded the claimant from proving the essential element that the insurer lacked a reasonable basis for denying benefits, and that procedural rules supported denial of default. The court also found the discovery issue unpreserved for appeal.

labor & employmentproceduretorts & liability

The case involved nonresident shareholders of an Iowa S corporation challenging tax assessments on interest income earned from Iowa bank accounts holding proceeds from the corporation's Iowa farming and land activities. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the assessments, holding that the interest constituted business income taxable in Iowa under state law mirroring federal S corporation pass-through rules. The court reasoned that the income's character remains tied to its Iowa source, making it allocable to Iowa regardless of the shareholders' residency. Additionally, the tax did not violate the Commerce Clause because the statute was internally consistent, avoiding multiple taxation if all states adopted similar provisions.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a contract dispute between an Iowa corporation, First Midwest, and a Nebraska consulting firm, CFA, over fees for services related to the sale of a business. CFA had filed suit in Nebraska, where the court denied cross-motions for summary judgment and set the case for trial; First Midwest then filed a mirror-image declaratory judgment action in Iowa. The Iowa district court denied CFA's request for a stay under comity principles, granted summary judgment to First Midwest, and awarded attorney fees. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing the stay, as the Nebraska proceedings were advanced, the Iowa action amounted to forum shopping, and comity favored allowing the Nebraska court to proceed. The court vacated the summary judgment and fee award, remanding for entry of the stay.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a defamation lawsuit brought by Jane Kliebenstein and her husband against the Iowa Conference of the United Methodist Church and related defendants. Church officials had sent a letter to congregation members and local community residents accusing Kliebenstein of acting under the "spirit of Satan" by sowing discord and proposing to remove her from church offices or expel her. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that civil courts lacked jurisdiction under the Establishment Clause because the dispute concerned ecclesiastical discipline. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statements had ascertainable secular meanings, such as extreme wickedness, and were published beyond church members, allowing a limited defamation claim to proceed without improper entanglement in religious doctrine.

religious libertytorts & liability

The case involved Danny R. Barker's appeal from his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under Iowa Code chapter 229A, following his prior convictions for sexual abuse and incest against minors. Barker challenged the trial court's marshalling jury instruction, arguing it should have specified that he had serious difficulty controlling "predatory" sexually violent behavior rather than just sexually violent behavior. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the commitment, holding that the given instruction correctly stated the law by requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a qualifying conviction, a mental abnormality, serious difficulty controlling sexually violent behavior due to that abnormality, and likelihood of predatory acts if not confined. The court reasoned that the statutory definition of "predatory" (acts directed at victims with whom a relationship was established for victimization) applies separately to the fourth element concerning future offenses and need not be repeated in the control element, consistent with constitutional requirements from Kansas v. Crane. The court further noted that the instruction as given properly distinguished the relationship-based predatory concept from the nature of the behavior itself.

criminal law

This case involved defendant Michael Shearon's appeal from his conviction for lascivious acts with a child, based on an incident where he exposed himself to and had a six-year-old touch his penis while babysitting. Shearon raised three claims: ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to procedural lapses in the use of closed-circuit television testimony by the child witness under Iowa Code section 915.38, error in refusing a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of indecent contact with a child, and an illegal sentence requiring DNA profiling. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in full. It reasoned that any procedural shortcomings in the closed-circuit testimony caused no prejudice to Shearon's confrontation rights, that lascivious acts with a child and indecent contact with a child have distinct elements so the latter is not a lesser-included offense, and that the DNA profiling order was authorized by Iowa Code section 901.5(8A)(b) despite reference to the wrong subsection.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a dispute between two insurance companies, Iowa Mutual and Federated Insurance, over how to divide responsibility for a $265,000 settlement paid to injured parties after a car accident involving a test-driven vehicle. The district court ruled that the insurers should share the costs pro rata based on their policy limits ($300,000 and $40,000), leading to Federated seeking reimbursement from Iowa Mutual. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the conflicting 'excess' clauses in both policies were mutually repugnant and thus required proration rather than one policy being excess over the other. The court rejected Iowa Mutual's argument that this constituted improper subrogation by Federated against its own insured, clarifying that the action concerned the insurers' mutual obligations under their policies.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In State v. Trigon, Inc., the defendants faced misdemeanor charges under Iowa’s Occupational Health and Safety Act after a worker fell to his death from a tower under construction by the company. The district court suppressed statements the company president made to an IOSHA inspector, ruling that the president had requested counsel and that further questioning should have ceased. On discretionary review, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed the suppression order and remanded the case. The court held that the interview was not custodial, so Miranda warnings were unnecessary, and that the statements were voluntary because the inspector neither threatened sanctions nor compelled cooperation. The decision rested on the absence of custody or coercion under Fifth Amendment standards.

criminal lawprocedurelabor & employment

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Rick Caselman, a Wal-Mart truck driver who suffered a back injury in 1997 while unloading merchandise in Iowa, leading to surgery and ongoing pain that prevented his return to full duties. The workers' compensation commissioner found a substantial industrial disability and imposed penalty benefits for Wal-Mart's delayed payments and improper application of Kansas law. The district court overturned these findings, but on appeal the Iowa Supreme Court held that substantial evidence in the record supported the commissioner's determinations regarding the extent of disability and the justification for penalties. The court therefore reversed the district court's decision and remanded for an order affirming the agency award.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case arose when a ninth-grade student on a school band trip was found with cigarettes in violation of the district's zero-tolerance policy and was sent home alone by bus from Texas to Iowa. The student's father sued the school district and employees for negligent endangerment and related claims after the district court granted a directed verdict in the defendants' favor. The Iowa Supreme Court held that the discretionary function exception in the municipal tort claims act does not immunize the district from its alleged breach of the duty of care and supervision owed to students, reversing the directed verdict on the negligence claims and remanding for trial. The court affirmed dismissal of the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and tortious interference with contract due to insufficient evidence of severe distress and the lack of third-party status, respectively.

torts & liability

This case involved the Iowa Department of Transportation enforcing Iowa Code section 306C.11 against Don Bosco High School to remove thirty-seven booster signs visible from highway 297. The district court reversed the agency's removal order, but the Iowa Supreme Court reversed that decision and upheld the removal. The court reasoned that the signs did not qualify for the on-premise exception because they advertised off-site businesses, and the statute constitutionally regulated commercial speech to promote traffic safety and aesthetics without being overly broad.

business & regulatoryfree speechenvironment

The case involved a school maintenance worker, Ron Virden, who fell from a ladder and was injured while attempting to reattach an angle iron that had detached from a ceiling installed by the defendant contractors. Virden sued the contractors for negligence in their installation work, claiming it led to his need to perform the repair and his subsequent fall. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that any negligence on their part was not the proximate cause of Virden's injuries, a ruling affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court after the court of appeals had reversed. The court reasoned that the duty owed by the contractors was to prevent ceiling components from falling on occupants below, not to protect repair workers from risks associated with using a ladder, and that the ladder fall was not a natural or foreseeable consequence of the defective installation.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved the adjudication of two adopted minor siblings, Vicki and Dustin, as children in need of assistance (CINA) under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(d) based on allegations that their father, Roger, had engaged in sexual misconduct with Vicki and her eight-year-old friend in the bathtub. The juvenile court credited the children's accounts over the father's changing explanations, found both children at imminent risk of sexual abuse, and ordered family services with custody placed with the mother. The court of appeals affirmed the CINA finding for Vicki but reversed as to Dustin for lack of proof of imminent harm to him. On further review, the Iowa Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' decision and affirmed the juvenile court's adjudication for both children, holding that clear and convincing evidence—including the father's prior admissions, minimization of the conduct, the child protection worker's assessment of grooming behavior, and Dustin's vulnerability—established that he too was imminently likely to be sexually abused.

family law

The case concerned an Iowa resident employee of an out-of-state tractor manufacturer who sued over a roughly $4,000 deduction from his discretionary year-end bonus for losses tied to 'sold out of trust' dealership transactions in his territory. The employee claimed the deduction violated Iowa Code chapter 91A, the state's wage payment collection law, which bars deductions for losses due to customer credit defaults. The district court ruled the statute applied, submitted the factual dispute to a jury that sided with the employee, and entered judgment for the withheld amount plus attorney fees while denying liquidated damages. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that chapter 91A governed the controversy and that the deduction was improper under the statute, while also rejecting the employee's cross-appeal on damages. A special concurrence noted choice-of-law concerns but agreed with the outcome.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a dispute between computer programmer Lee Scott and Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company over payment for developing a rate-quoting software program. Scott initially sued under a theory of implied contract for the value of services rendered but was permitted to amend his petition at trial to claim breach of an express contract, resulting in a jury award of $100,000 in reliance damages. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the late amendment prejudiced the defendants because the proof required for damages under the express contract theory differed substantially from that needed under the original implied contract theory, necessitating a new trial.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a home buyer suing a home inspection company for negligence after relying on an inspection report that failed to identify defective siding on the property, leading to financial loss. The district court granted summary judgment to the inspection company, ruling it owed no duty to the buyer who was not in privity and whose reliance was not sufficiently foreseeable. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that section 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts imposed a duty on the company to a limited class of foreseeable third-party users. The court reasoned that the report explicitly allowed disclosure to other interested parties and evidence showed the company knew relocation firms often shared such reports with buyers, making reliance foreseeable unlike in more remote prior cases.

torts & liabilityproperty

In Chapa v. John Deere Ottumwa Works, the plaintiff sought workers’ compensation benefits for tinnitus, a hearing disorder diagnosed in 1997 and attributed to long-term factory noise exposure at his employer, from which he retired in 1995. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the agency and district court decisions denying the claim as barred by the two-year statute of limitations under Iowa Code section 85.26(1). The court applied the discovery rule for cumulative injuries, holding that the limitations period began no later than the employee’s last day of work in 1995 (or possibly as early as 1983) because he knew or should have known the nature, seriousness, and work-related character of his condition at that time. It further held that the 1996 Ehteshamfar decision, which clarified how tinnitus is compensated, did not toll or reset the statute.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a bicyclist who suffered serious injuries, including a closed head injury, when struck by a truck on a rural Iowa road. The plaintiff sued the truck driver for negligence, and a jury awarded him over $415,000 in damages. The defendant appealed, arguing the trial court erred by refusing jury instructions on comparative fault and the sudden emergency doctrine, and by admitting certain evidence about the plaintiff's future earning capacity. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the record lacked substantial evidence to support submitting those instructions to the jury and that the evidentiary rulings were within the trial court's discretion.

torts & liabilityprocedure