2019 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Charles D. Fagan, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.  Opinion by Doyle, J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.  OPINION HOLDS: Clear and convincing evidence shows the State proved the grounds for terminating the mother’s parental rights under Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2019) and termination is in the child’s best interests.  The mother failed to preserve her challenge to the reasonable efforts made to return the child to her care.  We therefore affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Eric J. Nelson, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (9 pages)

            A father appeals the juvenile court order adjudicating his two daughters as children in need of assistance.  He contends the court erred in several evidentiary rulings and the State failed to present clear and convincing evidence to prove the grounds for adjudication.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the evidentiary rulings did not prejudice the father in these proceedings.  The State presented sufficient proof of the grounds for the adjudication.  Accordingly, we affirm. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Korie Shippee, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (7 pages)

            The father appeals the termination of his parental rights to A.D.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court that the statutory grounds for termination are satisfied, termination is in the child’s best interests, and no factor precludes termination.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Adam D. Sauer, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Danilson, S.J.  Opinion by Danilson, S.J.  (5 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child, arguing she should be granted an extension of time to seek reunification and termination is not in the child’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the juvenile court that an extension of time is not warranted and termination of the mother’s parental rights is in the child’s best interests. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Paul G. Crawford, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Mullins, J.  (2 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his four minor children, contending termination is not in the children’s best interests and he should have been allowed an additional six months to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the termination of the father’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Keokuk County, Daniel Kitchen, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Gamble, S.J.  Opinion by Gamble, S.J.  (4 pages)

            A mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights to four of her children.  She challenges one statutory ground authorizing termination and whether termination serves the children’s best interests.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother does not challenge all statutory grounds authorizing termination, we find grounds for termination are met.  We also find termination in the children’s best interests.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Steven Guiter, District Associate Judge.  AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Greer, J., and Scott, S.J.  Opinion by Scott, S.J.  (6 pages)

            Parents separately appeal the termination of their parental rights to their child.  They each challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the statutory ground for termination cited by the juvenile court, argue termination is not in the best interests of the child due to the closeness of the parent-child bonds, maintain the court should have applied statutory exceptions to termination, and request a six-month extension to work toward reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We find the State met its burden for termination, termination serves the child’s best interests, and applying exceptions or granting an extension is unwarranted.  We affirm termination of the parents’ parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Kellyann M. Lekar, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Potterfield, P.J.  (9 pages)

            Dustin Truax appeals from the denial of his application for postconviction relief following his conviction of two counts of lascivious acts with a child.  He challenges an amendment to the trial information and urges us to find trial and appellate counsel ineffective.  OPINION HOLDS: Having considered each of Truax’s claims, we agree with the PCR court that no relief is warranted.  We affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, John C. Bauercamper, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED.  Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, P.J.  (14 pages)

            A dentist appeals a post-trial ruling following a jury verdict for his patient in a malpractice action.  While performing a molar extraction the surgical bur from dentist’s handpiece used during that extraction disappeared.  X-rays revealed the presence of the bur in the patient’s lung.  The patient’s lung was partially removed in an attempt to remove the surgical bur resulting in loss in lung capacity.  The district court allowed the patient to introduce expert testimony to establish the standard of care necessary during such a procedure.  The expert relied heavily upon a survey project to formulate her opinion in determining the standard of care.  OPINION HOLDS: Because of the missing foundation to establish that the facts and data derived from those surveys were “of a type reasonably relied upon by experts” in the dentist’s field in determining the standard of care, this hearsay evidence was not admissible under Iowa Rule of Evidence  5.703.  Because it was admitted, we reverse and remand for new trial. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Lars G. Anderson, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, J.  (3 pages)

            Jordan Holm appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief.  OPINION HOLDS: We agree with the detailed ruling of the district court, and we affirm without further opinion.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Marlita A. Greve, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and May, JJ.  Opinion by Vaitheswaran, P.J.  (6 pages)

            A developer appeals the ruling of the district court, contending a seller breached certain real estate contracts.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s denial of the developer’s petition.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Heard by Potterfield, P.J., and Bower and Greer, JJ.  Opinion by Bower, J.  (17 pages)

            The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Des Moines (Board) appeals after the district court sustained the writ of certiorari by which S & A 786, LLC, doing business as Downtown Pantry (Pantry), challenged the legality of the Board’s revocation of its conditional use permit (CUP).  OPINION HOLDS: Because we agree with the district court there is not substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding the Pantry’s operation had created a nuisance and the revocation of the CUP was arbitrary and capricious, we affirm.