|
| 07-0158 State v. Evans and Blue Ridge Condominium |
|
| The State appeals from a summary judgment dismissing its claims against the defendants for disability discrimination in housing design and construction. The State contends the court erred by finding its suits were barred by the statute of limitations. The State contends the statute of limitations does not begin to run until a prospective home seeker personally encounters the discrimination, not at the time the last unit is first sold. The State also argues the statute of limitations has no application to actions it brings under Iowa Code section 216.17A(9)(2007) to redress pattern or practice discrimination and issues of general public importance. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0236 State v. Feregrino |
|
| The State seeks further review of a court of appeals opinion which reversed a defendant’s conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and remanded the case for a new trial. The State argues State v. Stallings, 658 N.W.2d 106 (Iowa 2003), should be overruled in so far as it holds prejudice is presumed when defense counsel fails to ensure there was substantial compliance with Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.17(1) (defendant’s waiver of right to jury trial). |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0508 Capital Promotions v. Don King Prods. et al |
|
| The court has granted further review of the court of appeals’ opinion affirming the district court ruling granting Capital Promotions, L.L.C.’s motion for summary judgment, finding that it did not have personal jurisdiction over Don King Productions, Inc. |
|
|
|
|
|
06-1960 Carmody v. Dis. Ct for Henry County
07-0714 Garren v. Dist. Ct. for Polk County
06-1856 Johnson v. Dist. Court for Story County |
|
06-1960 In this certiorari action the plaintiff (a sexually violent predator civilly committed under Iowa Code chapter 229A) contends the district court exceeded its jurisdiction and acted illegally when it incorrectly applied the law and measured and weighed the parties' conflicting expert opinions in order to determine if he had satisfied his burden of proof to obtain a final hearing under Iowa Code section 229A.8A(5)(e) (2005). The plaintiff also contends the court exceeded its jurisdiction and acted illegally when it determined he had failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to obtain a final hearing.
07-0714 In this certiorari action the plaintiff (a sexually violent predator civilly committed under Iowa Code chapter 229A) contends the district court exceeded its jurisdiction and acted illegally when it measured and weighed the parties’ conflicting expert opinions in order to determine if the plaintiff had satisfied his burden of proof to obtain a final hearing under Iowa Code section 229A.8A(5)(e) (2007).
06-1856 In this certiorari action the plaintiff (a sexually violent predator civilly committed under Iowa Code chapter 229A) contends the district court exceeded its jurisdiction and acted illegally when it incorrectly applied the law and measured and weighed the parties’ conflicting expert opinions in order to determine if the plaintiff had satisfied his burden of proof to obtain a final hearing under Iowa Code section 229A.8A(5)(e) (2005). The plaintiff also contends the court exceeded its jurisdiction and acted illegally when it determined he had failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to obtain a final hearing. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0474 Geisler v. City Council of Cedar Falls |
|
| The petitioner appeals from district court orders granting the respondent city council's motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment in an action challenging the council's denial of approval of the petitioner's proposed site plan for multi-family housing and the council's adoption of a temporary moratorium on site plan approvals. The petitioner contends the district court erred in (1) granting the motion to dismiss based on a finding the council acted within its legislative authority in adopting the development moratorium, and (2) granting the motion for summary judgment on the basis the allegedly pending moratorium while revisions to the zoning ordinance were being considered rendered the challenge to the denial of the site plan moot. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0330 Phi Delta Theta et al. v. State of Iowa et al. |
|
| The State of Iowa, University of Iowa, and Phillip E. Jones, the defendants, have appealed a district court ruling finding that they unlawfully used and disclosed an illegally intercepted oral communication, in violation of Iowa Code chapter 808B (2003). The defendants argue the district court erred in ruling: (1) the plaintiff Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity has standing to bring an action under chapter 808B; and (2) the defendants were liable for a violation of chapter 808B. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0703 State v. Wade |
|
| The State appeals from the district court’s ruling that Iowa Code section 903B.2 (2005) (imposition of a special sentence) was illegal and unconstitutional. The State contends the section 903B.2 special sentence does not violate substantive due process, procedural due process, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, equal protection, or the constitutional separation of powers. The State further contends the statute is not constitutionally overbroad as applied to the defendant nor does it constitute an illegal sentence. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 06-1368 In re Coll. Cmty. School District Bd. of Directors |
|
| A school district and its superintendent appeal from district court rulings regarding a subpoena duces tecum filed by a teacher in a teacher termination proceeding. The district maintains the court erred in ordering school board members to answer an interrogatory proffered by the teacher. The superintendent contends the district court erred in refusing to quash all aspects of the subpoena because it was not timely served. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 06-1472 State v. Johnson |
|
| The defendant appealed from his conviction, following a jury trial, of second-degree robbery. He contended the district court erred in finding his motion to suppress evidence based upon an allegedly invalid search warrant was barred by res judicata principles. He further claims the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by limiting the actions of his standby counsel at trial. The court of appeals affirmed his conviction, and the supreme court granted the defendant's application for further review. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0127 Sweeney v. Bettendorf Parks & Rec Dept. et al. |
|
| Plaintiffs appeal from a summary judgment dismissing the City of Bettendorf from their negligence suit, in which they seek damages for injuries Tara Sweeney sustained when she was struck by a thrown bat while attending a baseball game on a field trip sponsored by the City. Plaintiffs contend the district court erred by finding the City was shielded from liability based on Tara’s mother’s signing of a permission slip containing an anticipatory release, which plaintiffs argue (1) is too indefinite and ambiguous to be effective, (2) is unenforceable as a violation of public policy, and (3) is subject to disaffirmance by Tara, a minor. Plaintiffs also contend the court erred by finding there was insufficient evidence that the City had breached a duty of care owed to Tara. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 06-1354 Timberland Partners et al. v. Iowa Dept. of Revenue |
|
| Petitioners, owners of one or more multi-unit apartment complexes in different locations in Iowa, appeal the district court’s dismissal of their petition for judicial review of a Department of Revenue order denying their request for declaratory relief. Petitioners contend the district court and the Department erred by failing to recognize that Iowa Administrative Code sections 701-71.1(4) and (5) violate federal and state equal protection principles by treating their apartment buildings as commercial property for taxation purposes, while treating similarly situated condominium complexes as residential property. Petitioners also contend the district court erred by denying their request for attorney fees. |
|
|
|
|
|
| 06-1691 Van Fossen v. MidAmerican Energy |
|
| The court has granted further review of the court of appeals’ opinion affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment, finding that two premises owners did not owe a duty of care to the spouse of an independent contractor’s employee |
|
|
|
|
|
| 07-0824 State v. Wilkes |
|
| The supreme court granted the State's application for further review of the court of appeals' opinion which found the acts of police officers stopping behind and then walking up to the defendant's vehicle to perform a welfare check on the occupants constituted a seizure, where no use of force or show of authority had been utilized. |
|
|
|
