This case involved real estate agents who purchased a franchise from Iowa-Nebraska Partners Real Estate, Inc., after being assured that the franchisor would not solicit additional franchises in their area, only to later discover competition from another franchisee using a similar name. The plaintiffs sued for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, seeking damages and rescission of the franchise agreement. A jury awarded them $40,579 in damages, and the trial court also granted rescission while finding the verdict covered all losses including franchise fees. The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgments and vacated the court of appeals reversal, holding that the evidence supported the jury's finding of knowing fraudulent misrepresentation that induced the contract, making submission of the negligent misrepresentation claim harmless error.
The case concerned judicial review of a local human relations commission's final decision finding that a school district had engaged in age discrimination in employment. After the district appealed to district court and sought to introduce a transcript of the commission's deliberative meeting plus depositions of attendees to probe alleged bias, the district court granted those requests. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed on interlocutory appeal, ruling that under the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act the transcript of agency deliberations was not part of the contested-case record and that the district court lacked authority to order additional evidence or discovery on bias issues, which must instead be addressed first by the agency itself. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that holding.
This case involves an attorney disciplinary proceeding against John J. Cody, Jr., who pleaded guilty to two counts of theft in the third degree for issuing insufficient funds checks in connection with his business operations. The Iowa Supreme Court, upon de novo review, found that Cody violated several provisions of the Iowa Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers, including rules against illegal conduct involving moral turpitude and conduct involving dishonesty. The court decided to suspend Cody's license to practice law indefinitely, with no eligibility for reinstatement for at least two and a half years from the date of his temporary suspension in December 1985. The core reasoning is that the guilty plea established the misconduct, which reflects on his fitness to practice law, and that prior exemplary conduct and community involvement do not mitigate the need to uphold professional ethics and deter similar behavior.
This case involved Iowa’s disclaimer of succession statute and whether a surviving joint tenant could validly disclaim his survivorship interest in real property acquired decades earlier to avoid inheritance tax. The district court ruled the disclaimer untimely because it was not filed within nine months of the joint tenancy’s creation and was barred by acceptance of benefits. The Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statutory nine-month period begins upon the death of the other joint tenant rather than at the original transfer creating the tenancy, and that the survivor’s prior use of the property and post-death possession as life tenant did not constitute acceptance of the disclaimed remainder interest.
This case involved a dispute in a marital dissolution proceeding over whether a father remained obligated to pay temporary child support that had accrued before the final divorce decree. The father sought a declaratory judgment claiming the obligation was unenforceable due to a court rule dismissal of the case and a release provision in the stipulation incorporated into the decree. The Iowa Supreme Court held that the temporary support obligation accrued before the dismissal remained enforceable despite the later dismissal and reinstatement, but that the release language in the decree relieved the father of liability for the accrued amounts up to the decree date. The court's reasoning relied on statutory interpretation and precedent indicating that dismissals do not erase prior accrued obligations, while construing the decree's intent to release prior debts.
The case involved judicial review of the Iowa Department of Job Service's denial of unemployment benefits to Deloma Norland, who had refused a temporary job offer from her prior employer after a medical leave of absence. The department determined that the offered work was suitable under Iowa Code section 96.5(3) because it matched her prior role in duties, wages, and location, with no health risks, and that she lacked good cause for refusal solely due to its temporary nature. The district court upheld the denial after earlier procedural issues were resolved on appeal, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed, finding the agency's findings and conclusions conformed to statutory requirements, properly assigned the burden of proof, and were supported by substantial evidence without being arbitrary or capricious. The court reviewed the matter under the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, focusing on the suitability factors in the code and administrative rules.