Skip to main content
Iowa Judicial Branch
Main Content

Case No. 23-1101

Jennings v. Fremont County

County:
Fremont

Danny Jennings, Shelley Jennings, Kristen Thatcher, Stephen Thatcher, Ida Van Scyoc and Tandon Van Scyoc, Petitioners-Appellants

Fremont County, Iowa, Board of Supervisors of Fremont County, Iowa, Clint Blackburn, Chris Clark, Randy Hickey and Dustin Sheldon, Respondents-Appellees

Shenandoah Hills Wind Project, LLC, Intervenor

Attorneys for Appellants

Shawn Shearer

Attorney for Appellees

Robert M. Livingston

Kristopher K. Madsen

Attorneys for Intervenor

Kristy Dahl Rogers

Bret A. Dublinske

Brant M. Leonard

Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Opinion

Opinion Number:
23-1101
Date Published:
Dec 18, 2024
Summary

            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fremont County, Greg W. Steensland, Judge.  AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.  Heard by Buller, P.J., Langholz, J., and Gamble, S.J. Opinion by Buller, P.J.  Special Concurrence by Langholz, J.  (18 pages)

            Freemont County residents appeal the district court’s order dismissing all claims on a motion to dismiss regarding county ordinances and a proposed wind turbine project against the county and board of supervisors.  OPINION HOLDS: All of the claims other than those alleging open‑meetings violations should have been brought by certiorari and were therefore untimely.  The public‑meetings claims, although pled thinly, were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.  We affirm dismissal of all claims but the alleged public‑meetings violations, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings. SPECIAL CONCURRENCE ASSERTS: I join in all the court’s well-reasoned opinion, including its decision not to reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim that the repealer clause of the wind ordinance violates Iowa Code section 331.302(4).  I write separately to emphasize that no one should read the court’s opinion as blessing the wind ordinance’s general repealer clause.  In a case where it were necessary to do so, I would not hesitate to hold the repealer clause violates section 331.302(4) because it fails to specify any particular provision that is repealed.

© 2025 Iowa Judicial Branch. All Rights Reserved.