For summaries from opinions prior to August, 2018, view PDF versions here.
Thomas J. Duff
v.
Kimberly K. Reynolds, Glen Dickinson, Leslie Hickey and Dan Huitink
Appellee
Thomas J. Duff
Appellant
Kimberly K. Reynolds, Glen Dickinson, Leslie Hickey and Dan Huitink
Attorney for the Appellee
Bob Rush
Attorneys for the Appellant
Jeffrey S. Thompson, Solicitor General of Iowa
David M. Ranscht and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant Attorneys General
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joseph Seidlin, Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED ON BOTH APPEALS. Heard by Bower, C.J., Mullins, J., Greer, J., Danilson, S.J., and Potterfield, S.J. May, Schumacher, and Ahlers, JJ., take no part. Opinion by Mullins, J. Concurrence in part and dissent in part by Danilson, S.J. (10 pages)
On interlocutory appeal, the appellants appeal, and appellee cross-appeals, the district court’s partial grant and partial denial of the appellants’ motion to dismiss. The appellants argue the court erred in concluding the appellee has standing to sue as a previously unsuccessful judicial applicant before the State Judicial Nominating Commission. The appellee argues the court erred in failing to conclude he has standing to sue as a member of the Iowa bar, he should alternatively be excepted from the standing requirement because his lawsuit concerns a matter of great public importance, and the court erred in declining to grant a temporary injunction. OPINION HOLDS: We conclude the appellee lacks standing as a past or future applicant before the Commission. We therefore reverse the partial denial of the motion to dismiss on the ground that the appellee had standing as a judicial applicant. We reject the appellee’s claims the court erred in failing to conclude he has standing to sue as a member of the Iowa bar or he should alternatively be excepted from the standing requirement because his lawsuit concerns a matter of great public importance. We need not address the request for a temporary injunction. PARTIAL DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent in part. I agree the appellee does not have traditional standing to challenge divisions XIII and XIV of Senate File 638. I part ways with the majority in respect to the cross-appeal and would find the appellee is entitled to an exception to standing by raising an issue of great public importance.
