Skip to main content
Iowa Judicial Branch
Main Content

Supreme Court Expected List

Iowa Supreme Court Opinions
Expected to be filed June 15, 2018


16–0158  In the Interest of T.H

The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his delinquency adjudication for sexual abuse in the third degree.  He also contends the state and federal prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment render unconstitutional the mandatory sex-offender registration requirements when applied to a juvenile offender. 

17–0202  Walsh v. Wahlert

Joseph Walsh, the former chief administrative law judge at the Iowa Workforce Development, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Teresa Wahlert and the State of Iowa.  He argues: (1) the district court erred in holding that Walsh, a merit system employee, was required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing a whistleblower claim pursuant to Iowa Code section 70A.28 and (2) the district court erred in holding that the claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is not available to merit system employees. 

14–1682  Andersen v. Khanna

The appellants are seeking further review after the court of appeals affirmed the jury’s verdict entered in favor of the appellees in a medical malpractice suit.  The court of appeals found no error on the district court’s part in preventing the jury from hearing the appellants’ informed-consent claim based on the appellant’s “super bad heart,” the doctor had no duty to inform the appellant of his inexperience in performing the procedure, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the appellants to call a rebuttal witness, and the district court did not err in refusing to provide the appellants’ marshaling instruction.   

16–0287  Ackerman v. State

A state administrative law judge whose employment was covered by a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) was granted an interlocutory appeal from a district court order dismissing one of her causes of action, a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, on the ground that the claim is only available to at-will employees.  Plaintiff contended the district court erred by holding that the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is not available to her because she was a party to a CBA.  The court of appeals reversed and remanded, finding plaintiff’s status as a CBA-covered employee does not prevent her from pleading the tort of wrongful discharge.  Defendants seek further review.   

16–1333  Mormann v. Iowa Workforce Dev.

The plaintiff was granted an interlocutory appeal from the district court’s ruling granting, in part, the defendant's preanswer motion to dismiss.  The plaintiff argues: (1) the district court should have found his time for filing a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission was tolled because of his inability to obtain vital information regarding the defendant’s “admissions of age discrimination” until transcripts containing that information were disclosed to the public, and (2) the defendant should be barred from raising a statute-of-limitations defense because it “deliberately misled” the plaintiff “as to the true reason” for its decision not to hire him.


© 2018 Iowa Judicial Branch. All Rights Reserved.