|
| 04-1705 Maghee v. State of Iowa |
|
| Valentino Maghee appealed from a denial of his postconviction relief action that challenged the revocation of his work release from a correctional facility. Maghee contends (1) a complaint by an inmate that his work release has been improperly revoked can properly be challenged under the state postconviction relief statute, and (2) the appellate court can rule on the merits of the case regarding jurisdiction despite the fact Maghee is now deceased. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 06-1542 Botsko v. Davenport Civil Rights Commission |
|
| The petitioner seeks further review of the court of appeals’ decision affirming the district court’s ruling on judicial review that affirmed the respondent commission’s ruling on the respondent employee’s civil rights complaint against the petitioner as her employer. The local commission determined the petitioner subjected the employee to a sexually hostile work environment and constructively discharged her. The commissioner awarded the employee damages and attorney fees. The petitioner asserts that the court of appeals erred in determining (1) the respondent as a local civil rights commission could hold, pursuant Iowa Code section 21.5(1)(f), closed sessions for deliberations on this contested case proceeding under Iowa Code chapter 17A, and (2) the commission had authority under Iowa Code section 216.15(8)(a)(8) to award the employee attorney fees when the municipal ordinance, Davenport Municipal Code section 2.58.170(F), provided the parties were allowed to be represented by |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0573 Weddum v. Davenport Community School District |
|
| School district obtained an interlocutory appeal of a district court ruling denying it summary judgment on teacher’s age discrimination claims. School district contends the court erred in failing to find as a matter of law that the district had not discriminated against plaintiff by denying her request for early retirement where the request was made before she had reached the age of eligibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0172 Rhoden et al. v. City of Davenport |
|
| In this consolidated appeal from two district court rulings where the district court, in part, found the City of Davenport’s Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE) ordinance preempted by State law, the City argues the district court erred by granting the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denying the City’s motion to dismiss/cross motion for summary judgment. It first contends the court erred in holding that the plaintiff’s payment of the civil fine to be “involuntary,” thus, permitting the plaintiff and all those similarly situated to proceed with the present action. The City next argues the district court erred in holding that the ATE is preempted by Iowa Code sections 321 and 805. Finally, the City argues the district court erred in granting the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class and motion for refund of collected fines and costs previously paid under the City’s ordinance. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0178 State v. Helmers |
|
| The supreme court granted the State’s application for discretionary review of the district court’s bifurcation order. The State argues the district court erred in ordering that the elements of the charged offense of stalking would be submitted to the jury first and then, if it found the defendant guilty, the jury would be directed to separately find (for sentencing enhancement purposes) whether the stalking offense had been committed while the defendant was subject to restrictions contained in a no contact order. The supreme court also granted discretionary review of the district court’s order overruling, in part, the defendant’s motion in limine in which he sought to prevent the State from offering evidence of conduct that occurred prior to his 2005 conviction for harassment. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 06-0542 Second Injury Fund v. Kratzer |
|
| The respondent seeks further review of the court of appeals’ decision affirming the district court’s ruling on judicial review that reversed the workers’ compensation commissioner’s award of second injury fund benefits to her. The respondent claims the court of appeals erred in determining there was no second injury fund liability triggered under Iowa Code section 85.64 by her left leg injury that occurred after her previously determined bilateral leg injury. The respondent claims the court of appeals’ interpretation of section 85.64 violates her equal protection rights. The respondent asserts that she actually sustained a qualifying first injury only to her right leg and then a qualifying second injury to her left leg resulting in fund liability regarding her permanent and total disability. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0352 State v. Bruegger |
|
| Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence for third-degree sexual abuse (second offense), in violation of Iowa Code sections 709.4(2)(c)(4) and 901A.2(3) (2007). Defendant contends: (1) the district court was without jurisdiction to sentence him on the enhancement because the State failed to allege his prior juvenile offense in the original or supplemental trial informations; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to argue that his twenty-five year sentence, with 85% mandatory minimum, is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his offense—having consensual sex with his fifteen-year-old girlfriend—such as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the federal and state constitutions; and (3) his counsel was ineffective in failing to ensure that he understood the sentencing consequences of his stipulation to the prior offense. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0546 Smith v. DHS and DIA |
|
| Anisa Mikah Smith appeals the district court’s decision on judicial review concluding that she committed dependent adult abuse by sexual exploitation within the meaning of Iowa Code section 235B.2(5)(a)(3). She argues: (1) the district court erred in finding Iowa Code section 235B.2(5)(a)(3) does not require an affirmative act of the caretaker; and (2) Iowa Code section 235B.2(5)(a)(3) is unconstitutional on its face on the basis it impinges upon privacy rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 06-1087 Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner of Insurance |
|
| The petitioner appeals from the district court's ruling on judicial review affirming the respondent's decision under Iowa Code section 515A.1 (2003) that the petitioner was excessively applying a rate for workers’ compensation insurance on its insured. The petitioner had applied its premium rate for workers' compensation insurance on the insured's full payroll when its employees engaged in interstate work were covered by other workers' compensation insurance ultimately paid by insured. The petitioner claims that the respondent's decision is not supported by substantial evidence regarding the alleged finding there was a contract for the other insurance and the finding on the proper allocation of the premiums between the two coverages. The petitioner further asserts (1) that the decision is arbitrary and capricious when the petitioner is legally obligated under the workers' compensation provisions of Iowa Code chapters 85 and 87 for all of the insured's workers' compensation liability and (2) that the allocation of payroll prejudiced the petitioner's substantial rights and was based upon an erroneous, illogical or unjustifiable interpretation of the law. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0687 State v. Smith |
|
| The State appeals from the district court’s order granting the defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment and ordering a new trial. The State argues a court is not required to inform a defendant about the Iowa Code section 903B.1 special sentence prior to accepting a plea, and, even if it was, the failure to do so would not render a plea void. The State also argues that because the defendant waived his right to file a motion in arrest of judgment when he entered his plea he must pursue any claim related to this matter in a postconviction proceeding. |
|
|
|
