2025 Archive | Court of Appeals Court Opinions

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Carrie K. Bryner, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Sandy, J.  (9 pages)

            A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son under Iowa Code section 232.116(1), paragraphs (e) and (h) (2024), arguing (1) the grounds for termination were not supported by clear and convincing evidence, (2) the State did not make reasonable efforts for reunification, and (3) she should have been granted an additional six months to work towards reunification.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s termination of the mother’s parental rights.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Cynthia S. Finley, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.  Opinion by Buller, J.  (6 pages)

            A mother appeals termination of her parental rights to two children.  OPINION HOLDS: Because the mother failed to preserve error on the reasonable‑efforts and relative‑custody‑exception claims, and since termination is in the children’s best interests, we affirm.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Susan Cole, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Tabor, C.J.  (6 pages)

    A father appeals the termination of parental rights to one child.  OPINION HOLDS: After our de novo review of the record, we credit the views of the professionals in the case that, despite making efforts to gain parenting skills, the father lacks the ability to care for the child safely.  We affirm the juvenile court order.
 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (11 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of parental rights, arguing the juvenile court erred in finding a statutory basis for termination under sections 232.116(1)(f) and (g) (2024) and finding termination was in the best interest of the child.  If termination is proper, the father asks this court to apply a permissive exception.  OPINION FINDS: Because we find termination was proper under section 232.116(1)(f) and in the best interests of the child, we affirm the decision of the juvenile court.  We find a permissive exception does not apply. 

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clarke County, William Price, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.  Opinion by Schumacher, J.  (8 pages)

            A father appeals the termination of his parental rights to his child, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the grounds for termination, claiming termination is not in the child’s best interests, and arguing a permissive exception to termination applies.  OPINION HOLDS: Upon our review, we affirm.  

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Keokuk County, Crystal S. Cronk, Judge.  AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  Heard by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and Sandy, JJ.  Opinion by Greer, P.J.  (22 pages)

            After being nearly involved in a head-on collision, which resulted in injuries to the driver of the other vehicle, Zachary Brain was investigated for driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.  Brain was later criminally charged, and he moved to suppress the evidence obtained through his interactions with officers and the result of the breath test.  The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Brain sought discretionary review of the ruling, which our supreme court granted before transferring the case to us.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court’s denial of Brain’s motion to suppress and remand for further proceedings.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Myron Gookin, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.  Opinion by Ahlers, J.  (7 pages).

            Star Auto Company, Inc. (Star Auto) appeals from a breach-of-contract action wherein damages were awarded to Mosinski Enterprises, LLC (Mosinski) based on Star Auto’s failure to competently rebuild Mosinski’s truck engine.  Star Auto argues the district court erred by finding it repudiated the contract with Mosinski and in finding that Mosinski did not breach the warranty by altering the engine’s settings.  OPINION HOLDS: Substantial evidence supports the finding that Star Auto’s repudiation was definite and unequivocal and that Mosinski did not breach the terms of the warranty prior to Star Auto’s repudiation.  Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s entry of judgment in favor of Mosinski.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark J. Smith, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (12 pages)

            Active Thermal Concepts, Inc. and Active Holdings Group, Inc. appeal a summary-judgment ruling that they breached a contract with Labor Force, Inc. for temporary employees.  OPINION HOLDS: Active’s disputes over the form of Labor Force’s summary judgment filings lack merit—Labor Force’s motion was timely, it contained a statement of undisputed facts, and any failure by Labor Force to expressly specify which of Active’s facts it was disputing in resistance to Active’s competing motion did not require the court to grant Active’s motion.  So too do Active’s substantive arguments fail—the summary-judgment evidence showed the parties intended for the contract to include services to Active Holdings, Labor Force substantially performed its contractual duties to the extent possible, and Labor Force incurred damages from Active’s breach.  We thus affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Labor Force.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Chicchelly, P.J., Langholz, J., and Carr, S.J.  Opinion by Carr, S.J.  (8 pages)

            Michael Cone Sr., an applicant for postconviction relief (PCR), appeals the district court’s denial of his PCR application, arguing he (1) received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel and (2) is actually innocent.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm, finding a lack of clear and convincing evidence of Cone’s actual innocence, and his trial counsel was not ineffective.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Fae Hoover Grinde, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Greer, P.J., Langholz, J., and Doyle, S.J.  Opinion by Doyle, S.J.  (8 pages)

            Vance Barton appeals from various drug convictions.  On appeal, Barton argues the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments “by repeatedly stating a false narrative.”  OPINION HOLDS: Finding no prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct, we affirm.

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Robert D. Tiefenthaler, Judge.  AFFIRMED.  Considered by Badding, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Langholz, J.  (8 pages)

            Kimberly Tillman appeals the dismissal of her suit against Jason Hinson for lack of service.  OPINION HOLDS: The district court correctly dismissed Tillman’s suit against Hinson without prejudice under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.302(5).  Sending the original notice by certified mail is not proper personal service under our rules.  Even if it were proper service, Hinson did not receive the original notice until after Tillman’s much-extended deadline for service.  And we cannot consider any of Tillman’s other arguments because they were not decided by—or for some, even raised to—the district court.

    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cedar County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.  CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED; SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.  Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Bower, S.J.  Opinion by Bower, S.J. (9 pages)

    Sean Sheets challenges the district court’s admission of evidence of prior instances of abuse committed against the same children in a different county and the court’s failure to recognize it had discretion to consider risk assessment information in his presentence investigation report.  OPINION HOLDS: We affirm Sheets’s convictions, vacate his sentences, and remand for resentencing.