Warren J. Rees

The case involved a dispute over modification of a Colorado child custody decree, with the father filing in Iowa after retaining the child there following a visitation and the mother appearing specially to challenge jurisdiction. The Iowa trial court refused to exercise jurisdiction and dismissed the application, and the Supreme Court affirmed on appeal while also affirming denial of the mother's request for expense reimbursement on cross-appeal. The court reasoned that under section 598A.14 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, Iowa could not modify the foreign decree because Colorado had jurisdiction as the child's home state and had not declined to assume jurisdiction to modify, as it had recently rejected a similar petition on the merits. Regarding expenses, the court held that the relevant statutory provisions for reimbursement did not apply because the dismissal was based on section 598A.14 rather than the grounds those provisions addressed.

family lawprocedure

The case involved an employee, Pease, who sought indemnity from his employer, Pexa, for attorney fees and expenses incurred in successfully defending a wrongful death lawsuit brought by a co-employee's estate alleging gross negligence in a workplace ditch cave-in. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Pease was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing or recovery of fees. The court's reasoning was that the charges against Pease involved active negligence with his personal participation, barring indemnity under precedents like Peters v. Lyons, and that the employer's workers' compensation immunity under Iowa Code § 85.20 precluded claims based on primary-secondary liability even when framed as a breach of independent duty.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case was a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the executor of Joan Marie Lang's estate against the City of Des Moines, alleging negligence in the city's care of Lang while she was held in jail on an intoxication charge after she had walked away from a detoxification center. Lang suffered seizures, a skull fracture, and ultimately died after being returned to her cell following initial treatment attempts. The trial court entered a jury verdict for the plaintiff, but the Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded for retrial, finding errors in the jury instructions on the city's duty of care to inmates and on damages, while upholding the exclusion of city property taxpayers from the jury pool in this civil case.

torts & liabilitycriminal lawprocedure

In State v. Hellwege, the Iowa Supreme Court reviewed a district court's refusal to impose the mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence under section 902.7 of the Iowa Code for a defendant convicted of voluntary manslaughter while armed with a firearm. The court granted certiorari after the State challenged the sentencing judge's determination that voluntary manslaughter did not qualify as a "forcible felony." The court held that voluntary manslaughter is a forcible felony because it is a class C felony that necessarily includes an assault, as an intent to kill cannot occur without an act intended to cause injury. This conclusion followed from prior precedents defining forcible felonies to include crimes that are felonies and inherently involve assault, thereby requiring application of the firearm minimum sentence.

criminal lawguns

The case concerned an equal protection challenge to an Iowa statute that extends the time for a person to file a tort lawsuit on claims arising during their minority, giving them one year after reaching adulthood. The plaintiff, injured as a minor in 1976, reached majority in 1977 but did not file suit until 1979, which the trial court dismissed as untimely under the two-year personal injury statute of limitations combined with the extension provision. The court affirmed the dismissal, applying rational basis review and finding that the statutes create no improper classification because the extension operates only to lengthen, not shorten, the standard two-year period, serving the legitimate purpose of limiting the time for bringing suits while accommodating minors. The provisions together ensure a minor plaintiff receives at least the full two-year period, and often more, without violating constitutional guarantees.

civil rightsproceduretorts & liability

In State v. Hitchens, the defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter after a fatal car collision; police suspected intoxication, arrested him, and obtained a search warrant for a blood test after he refused voluntary chemical testing under Iowa's implied consent law. The district court ruled the blood test results inadmissible, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed on discretionary review. The court held that chapter 321B, section 321B.7 prohibits any test after refusal, even pursuant to a warrant, as the statute's scheme relies on license revocation rather than compelled testing, and its broad admissibility rules apply to such proceedings. The decision rested on statutory interpretation guided by the law's purpose of reducing drunk driving without authorizing physical compulsion post-refusal, distinguishing it from other jurisdictions' approaches.

criminal lawprocedure

This case arose from a 1978 contract for the sale of 2700 acres of Iowa farmland by the Wilsons to Peter Youngblut, which included a one-year lease-back to the sellers and provisions for clearing liens to provide marketable title under Iowa standards, with an assignment of the sellers' prior contract interest as security. After liens appeared on the property and the buyer proposed disbursements from escrow funds to address them, the sellers refused to approve and later attempted to declare the contract void and forfeit it. The trial court granted the buyer's request for specific performance of the sale contract but denied his claims for double rent during holdover and foreclosure of the security assignment. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sellers could not forfeit the contract because they had not delivered marketable title free of the liens as required, that double rent was unavailable without a showing of willfulness or proper notice to quit under Iowa Code section 562.2, and that the assignment created no additional enforceable rights beyond the original contract obligations.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case concerned whether Iowa's guest statute (Code § 321.494), which bars negligence claims by non-paying passengers against drivers except in cases of intoxication or recklessness, violates the equal protection guarantee in Article I, section 6 of the Iowa Constitution. Plaintiff Jodi Bierkamp sued defendant Ricky Rogers for injuries from a car crash, alleging ordinary negligence and challenging the statute's constitutionality after Rogers moved to dismiss. The Iowa Supreme Court held the statute unconstitutional, overruling its earlier decision in Keasling v. Thompson, because the classification lacked a rational basis in light of changed circumstances such as widespread liability insurance and the absence of any legitimate purpose that could justify shielding drivers from ordinary negligence suits by guests. The court limited its review to state constitutional grounds, noting federal precedent did not control, and affirmed the trial court's ruling allowing the negligence claim to proceed.

torts & liabilitycivil rights

The case involved defendant Marvin Glen Cornelius's conviction for first-degree theft by deception under Iowa Code sections 714.1(3) and 714.2(1), stemming from his repeated visits to an 85-year-old woman's home where he performed tree repairs, falsely claimed termite or borer infestations, and collected over $21,000 for unnecessary spraying services that a professional exterminator later valued at around $412. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the conviction after addressing three issues raised on appeal. It held that the trial court properly denied the motion for change of venue because the limited pretrial newspaper coverage from two months earlier did not create a substantial likelihood of prejudice, with no evidence that jurors had seen the articles. The court also ruled that the prosecutor's single question touching on a matter excluded by the motion in limine caused no prejudice since it elicited no answer and the defendant had already cross-examined the witness. Finally, the court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the jury's findings on the elements of knowledge of falsity and the victim's reliance.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a real estate broker, Hilgendorf, suing landowners, the Hagues, for damages after they attempted to terminate an exclusive 12-month listing agreement for a 160-acre parcel priced at $224,000 with a 6% commission. The broker produced multiple offers meeting the terms, including one at the full listed price, but the sellers ignored them and claimed the parcel had to be sold as a unit with other land. The trial court awarded the broker damages equal to the lost commission, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that a principal who breaches an exclusive listing by wrongful termination is liable for the agent's lost profits, measured by the commission the agent would have earned if he proves he would have completed a sale within the term, as occurred here.

propertybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the administrator of Steven Wirtanen’s estate after he was killed in a 1976 car-truck collision on an Iowa county road. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants (truck driver and owner), and the plaintiff appealed on multiple grounds including lack of jurisdiction due to a missing judgment entry, improper admission of expert testimony and an accident report, insufficient evidence supporting the verdict, and alleged jury misconduct. The Iowa Supreme Court first addressed jurisdiction, ruling that a nunc pro tunc order properly entered the judgment retroactively, allowing the appeal to proceed. On the merits, the court found no error in the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, determined the verdict was supported by sufficient evidence, concluded that claims of jury misconduct concerned internal deliberations not subject to inquiry, and affirmed the judgment for the defendants.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case is a child custody dispute between divorced parents William Elliot Mann and Janis Lynn Fisher regarding their son Joshua, born in 1973, following an Oregon dissolution that left custody determination to Iowa courts under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. The trial court denied both parents' petitions and placed Joshua with his paternal uncle and aunt. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed on the mother's appeal, awarding her custody while affirming on the father's cross-appeal. The court held that authority exists to award custody to non-parents only upon a strong showing that neither parent is suitable, that the mother received due process through notice and opportunity to contest the proposed placement, and that evidence established her fitness and the child's best interests with her given her matured circumstances and resolved past issues.

family law

The case involved a burglary prosecution in which the state introduced a photograph recovered from film that had been stolen along with other items from the victim's car and garage. The trial court admitted the photograph over the defendant's objection and denied a motion for directed verdict, and the jury convicted the defendant. On appeal the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the victim's testimony about his long experience with photography, the reliability of his camera and development process, and his identification of objects and the location shown in the photograph supplied an adequate foundation for admission. The court further held that the photograph, together with a booking photo of the defendant and inconsistencies in his testimony, was sufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the burglar.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Young, the defendant pleaded guilty to terrorism under Iowa Code section 708.6(1) after firing a shotgun into an occupied apartment building, injuring a child, with intent to provoke fear in relatives. The trial court applied a mandatory minimum five-year sentence under section 902.7 for use of a firearm in committing a forcible felony. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, reasoning that the charged terrorism offense necessarily included the elements of assault, qualifying it as a forcible felony, and that the firearm enhancement applies whether or not firearm use is an element of the underlying crime. The court found no equal protection violation because the defendant provided no evidence to support the claim of disparate treatment.

criminal lawguns

The case involved competing applications by Security Savings Bank and Fidelity Brenton Bank to open the sole authorized bank office in Albion, Iowa; the Superintendent of Banking denied both in 1976 on the ground that no need existed for such an office. The district court, after taking additional evidence, found the denial arbitrary and capricious and ordered a certificate issued to Security. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the arbitrary-and-capricious finding but remanded the matter to the Superintendent to decide which applicant, if any, should receive permission. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that Security’s application must be remanded to the Superintendent for further consideration under the applicable statutes and rules in light of the undisputed arbitrary-and-capricious determination, without the courts making the initial merits decision. The court emphasized that judicial review of agency action is appellate in nature and that the agency must first address the applications on their merits.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a passenger who sued United Airlines after experiencing discomfort from tobacco smoke on a flight despite requesting a no-smoking seat in the first-class section. The plaintiff claimed breach of the airline's duty as a common carrier and breach of contract based on its smoking segregation policy, seeking a refund of his ticket price but no long-term health damages. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the action, holding that the airline was not negligent in its handling of the seating and smoking arrangements, that no special contractual obligation arose beyond the filed tariffs, and that the plaintiff failed to establish a breach of duty. The court addressed but did not resolve jurisdictional questions regarding federal preemption and primary jurisdiction by the Civil Aeronautics Board, focusing instead on the lack of liability under state law.

business & regulatoryfederal powertorts & liability

The case concerned a Scott County deputy sheriff, Richard W. Moritz, who supervised service of legal papers and received monthly shares of excess fees generated by charging attorneys flat zone-based rates instead of the statutory fifteen cents per mile. Moritz was charged with accepting an award for public duty under Iowa Code section 739.10, conspiracy to commit that offense, and related counts; after dismissal of initial informations and refiling, a jury convicted him of the lesser included offense of taking more than a lawful fee and of conspiracy. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court held that the speedy-trial dismissals did not bar the later distinct charges, rejected various evidentiary and instructional challenges, reversed the conspiracy conviction for lack of preserved error or supporting proof, affirmed the conviction on the included offense, and remanded for resentencing without regard to the reversed conspiracy count.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over title to a 105-acre Iowa farm devised in a will subject to a condition that the devisee refrain from associating with his common-law wife, leading the devisee to convey the property to his siblings via a deed that reserved his life estate; the plaintiffs (the common-law wife individually and as estate administrator, plus their daughter) sought to quiet title or establish dower rights, while a sibling counterclaimed for crop proceeds from a separate jointly held farm. The trial court quieted title in the plaintiffs and dismissed the counterclaim. The Iowa Supreme Court held that the will condition was a subsequent one needing enforcement to be effective, that the deed was supported by valid consideration and not fraudulent so the action was timely, that the wife retained dower because she did not join the deed, and that the counterclaim failed for lack of proof on damages, resulting in affirmance in part, reversal in part, and remand.

family lawproperty

The case involved Robert Medd appealing the dismissal of his petition to dissolve two family Dairy Queen partnerships (one in Iowa and one in Illinois) with his father and brothers and to obtain partition or the fair market value of his pro rata share of the assets. The trial court found that the parties' conduct and common understanding had made the withdrawal provision of a 1947 co-adventure agreement applicable to the partnerships, which limited a withdrawing partner to the value of his capital account, and dismissed the action. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that while Robert had dissolved the partnerships by notice, the 1947 agreement controlled the terms of withdrawal by agreement of the parties, entitling him only to his capital accounts rather than a share of the assets' fair market value, and that acceptance of the tendered payment did not moot the appeal.

business & regulatoryfamily law

This case concerned a dispute over the fee awarded to attorney R. Richard Bittner, who served as both co-executor and attorney for the estate of Cecelia C. Simon, valued at over $340,000. The probate court approved a fee of approximately two percent of the estate assets plus $120 based on the statutory schedule in Iowa Code sections 633.197 and 633.198 and the reasonable value of services. On appeal, the Iowa Supreme Court held that while the services were worth the higher amount, Bittner had informed the beneficiaries at the outset that the fee would be two percent and the estate administration proceeded on that basis. The court therefore modified the award downward by $120 to match the two-percent representation and affirmed the order as modified.

propertyprocedure