|
| 06-0256 State v. Christopher |
|
| On appeal from his convictions for possession of a controlled substance (crack cocaine) third offense, possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) third offense, and driving while barred, the defendant argues the district court erred in overruling his motion to suppress. The defendant claims his arrest and the search incident to the arrest were unlawful and that the court of appeals denied him his right to the effective assistance of appellate counsel when it would not allow his newly-appointed conflict-free counsel to file a supplemental brief to address these issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 06-1140 Overturff v. Raddatz Funeral Servs, Inc. |
|
| Plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant funeral home on her claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff contends the court erred by not recognizing the funeral home could be liable for failing to obtain her permission for cremating her husband’s remains, notwithstanding its reliance on permission from her spouse’s son, who had a durable power of attorney for health care. Plaintiff argues a cause of action against a funeral home for negligent infliction of emotion distress need not be predicated on a breach of contract, but could instead arise out of a breach of statutory and administrative duties imposed on the funeral home. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 05-0883 State v. Spates |
|
| The defendant was granted further review of a court of appeals opinion affirming his conviction of first-degree murder. He contends the court of appeals erred in (1) deciding a case that should have been retained by the supreme court, (2) unduly expanding the doctrine of felony murder in an aiding- and- abetting context, (3) affirming the district court's refusal to give a voluntary manslaughter instruction, (4) rendering a decision that conflicts with prior published supreme court decisions, and (5) implicitly requiring him to produce evidence on his own mental state at the time of the shooting. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 06-0655 Smith v. Koslow, et al. |
|
| Shirley Smith, as Executor of the Estate of Donald E. Smith, and individually, has been granted further review of the court of appeals opinion determining the district court did not err in giving the jury the following instruction: “The mere fact that a party was injured does not mean that a party was negligent.” |
|
|
|
|
|
| 06-1487 Chamberlain, L.L.C. v. City of Ames, et al. |
|
| The court has granted further review of the court of appeals decision affirming the district court’s granting of the City of Ames, Iowa and Ames Board of Appeals’ motion for summary judgment and denying Chamberlain, L.L.C.’s motion for summary judgment. Chamberlain argues the building official’s decision finally determined the code-compliance issues, and it has the effect of a judgment declaring the rights and obligations of Chamberlain and the City. Chamberlain further argues the court of appeals’ characterization of the legal relationship between the building official and a builder on interpretations of the building code as “informal” and “collaborative” is an error of law. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0101 Wilson v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. |
|
| Following this court’s decision in Wilson v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 714 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2006), the parties appeal the district court’s determination of the amount Farm Bureau is entitled to set off from its underinsured motorist payment a prior $5000 medical payment. The parties dispute whether plaintiff’s comparative fault should reduce the offset, whether Farm Bureau must be assigned a pro-rata share of plaintiff’s litigation expenses against the tortfeasor, and whether the district court properly calculated the interest on the judgment. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 06-1377 Midwest Ambulance Serv., et al. v. Ruud |
|
| The petitioners seek further review of the court of appeals’ decision affirming the district court’s judicial review ruling that upheld the workers’ compensation commissioner’s award of benefits to the respondent. The petitioners assert that the court of appeals erred in affirming the commissioner’s decision that the respondent’s workers’ compensation claim was not barred by the statute of limitations provided by Iowa Code section 85.26(1) (2005). The petitioners further assert that the court of appeals erred in affirming the commissioner’s determination that the petitioner employer was not entitled to a credit for the respondent’s medical benefits paid by the employer’s COBRA insurance coverage for which the respondent paid the premiums. The petitioners further contend they should not be responsible for reimbursement for any medical expenses paid by insurance to which the employer made no contribution. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0315 State v. Willard |
|
| Timothy Allen Willard appeals his conviction for violating the sex offender residency restrictions found in Iowa Code section 692A.2A (2005). He argues the sex offender residency restriction statute violates the following constitutional rights: (1) procedural due process; (2) equal protection; (3) right to travel; and (4) bill of attainder. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0566 Kirchner v. State |
|
| The applicant seeks further review of a court of appeals’ decision that affirmed the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief. He argues the district court and the court of appeals applied an incorrect standard of law when they found he would not have accepted the plea bargain offered by the State. He also argues the district court erred when it found his trial counsel had adequately informed him concerning the strength of the State’s case on the kidnapping charge. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 06-1428 Ranes v. Adams Labs., Inc., et al. |
|
| Plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendants on his claims of strict liability, negligence per se, fraudulent nondisclosure, breach of fiduciary duty, battery, and punitive damages, which were all based on neurological and emotional injuries he allegedly sustained from ingestion of Aquatab C, containing phenylpropanolamine. He contends there are genuine issues of material fact on each of his claims precluding the grant of a summary judgment, and in particular, argues the district court erred by excluding testimony from his expert witness, a toxicologist, concerning causation, and in not allowing him to designate additional expert witnesses. He further contends his claim against defendant Rinaldi does not require expert testimony. The defendants have each filed cross-appeals from district court rulings denying them alternate grounds for summary judgment. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0438 State v. Mitchell |
|
| Holly Marie Mitchell appeals from her conviction for child endangerment, in violation of Iowa Code section 726.6(1)(h), for cohabitating with a sex offender. She argues Iowa Code section 726.6(1)(h) is unconstitutional on the grounds: (1) it violates the due process clauses of the United States and Iowa Constitutions because it violates the defendant’s fundamental right to raise her children, her right to privacy and is an overbroad law; and (2) it violates the equal protection clauses of the United States and Iowa Constitutions because there is no rational reason to treat married persons who cohabit with a sex offender differently than unmarried persons who cohabit with a sex offender. |
|
|
|
