Skip to main content
Iowa Judicial Branch
Main Content

Supreme Court Expected List

The Iowa Supreme Court expects to file opinions in six cases on Friday, February 14, 2020.

18–1534    In re 2018 Grand Jury of Dallas Cty.
Dallas

On interlocutory appeal, John Doe challenges several district court rulings in a grand jury proceeding.  Doe argues: (1) the State cannot lawfully subpoena a criminal defense expert, retained in anticipation of litigation, to testify at a grand jury proceeding; (2) the district court has the inherent authority to quash a grand jury proceeding; (3) a prosecutor who contacts an accused’s expert ex parte must be disqualified from the case; and (4) rule 2.3(2)(a) requires any challenge to the grand jury panel, including fair cross-section challenges under State v. Plain, be raised and ruled upon before the grand jury is sworn. 

19–1740   Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Goedken

On review from grievance commission report and recommendation, Iowa Court rule 36.21(1). 

18–1354   33 Carpenters Constr., Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
Scott

Plaintiff contractor appeals a summary judgment dismissing its action against defendant insurer to recover insurance proceeds for plaintiff’s repair work on a storm-damaged home owned by defendant’s insured.  Plaintiff contends: (1) defendant cannot offensively use Iowa Code chapters 522C and 507A to invalidate the homeowners’ assignment to plaintiff of their rights to recover under their insurance policy with defendant; and (2) plaintiff’s conduct before the date of the post-loss assignment did not violate the statutory prohibition on unlicensed insurance adjusting. 

19–0678   33 Carpenters Constr., Inc. v. IMT Ins. Co.
Scott

Plaintiff, a home repair contractor, appeals from a summary judgment dismissing its breach-of-contract claim against defendant, the insurer of a home damaged in a storm.  Plaintiff contends the district court erred in finding it had been acting as an unlicensed public adjuster in obtaining a postloss assignment of the homeowner’s insurance claim, thereby rendering the assignment unenforceable.  Plaintiff asserts: (1) it obtained a valid postloss assignment from the insured; (2) there is no proof it acted as a public adjuster; and (3) the court erred in using a bright-line test, rather than a balancing test, in finding the assignment unenforceable. 

17–1979   33 Carpenters Constr., Inc. v. The Cincinnati Ins. Co.
Scott

Plaintiff, a home repair contractor, appealed from a summary judgment dismissing its action against defendant insurer to recover insurance proceeds for plaintiff’s repair work on a storm-damaged home owned by defendant’s insured.  Plaintiff contended it is entitled to recover from defendant under the policy based on the homeowner’s postloss assignment of the claim to plaintiff, and the district court erred in finding that the assignment was invalid because plaintiff had acted as an unlicensed public adjuster in violation of Iowa Code chapter 522C.  Defendant cross-appealed from the district court’s earlier ruling denying defendant’s application to terminate the case’s status as an expedited civil action.  The court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment.  Plaintiff seeks further review. 

18–0353   Irland v. Iowa Bd. of Medicine
Polk

Mark Irland, seeks further review of a court of appeals opinion that affirmed the dismissal of his petition for judicial review.  The court of appeals found that because nothing the Iowa Board of Medicine “advised” has resulted in Board action, Irland has not been adversely affected by a final agency action.  Accordingly, it held the district court did not err in concluding it was without authority to review the Confidential Letter of Warning. 

© 2020 Iowa Judicial Branch. All Rights Reserved.