Court of Appeals of Iowa

New opinions from the Court of Appeal of Iowa, today. I didn’t find too much interesting. But there was one casethat caught my eye. Our own Judge Hibbs was reversed on an order denying a motion to confirm an arbitration award. The appellant filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award, but it came after the statutory deadline for filing. Judge Hibbs granted the motion because the appellant claimed that he was not notified of the arbitration in the first place, and only found out about it when he received notice of the arbitration award. I understand the need for deadlines, but, if you believe the appellant, it seems to present a problem.

More Iowa Supreme Court Action

Two new opinions today. The first is State v. Smith (they come up with the most unique case names). Anyway, the State appealed from an order granting Mr. Smith a new trial. Mr.  Smith pled guilty and waived his right to file a motion in arrest of judgment. The Court sentenced him, but failed to inform him of or sentence him to the mandatory lifetime supervision required as a result of his plea to a charge of sexual abuse as an habitual offender. Before resentencing, Mr. Smith filed a motion in arrest of judgment and application to withdraw his plea. The Court granted a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the new trial grant, saying that this is a matter for post-conviction relief. First, the motion in arrest of judgment was not timely, second, Mr. Smith clearly waived his right to file the motion. So, Mr. Smith goes to jail.

The second case is State v. Helmers. This is another appeal by the State. They’re appealing the bifurcation of Mr. Helmers’ stalking trial. The District Court granted Mr. Helmers’ motion to bifurcate the issues of stalking and the existence of a no-contact order because the probative value of the no-contact order is substantially outweighed by the prejudice it would create. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded saying that the no-contact order was the best evidence the State had of the complaining witness’ displeasure with Mr. Helmers’ actions. According to the Supreme Court, any prejudiced could be “lessoned” (apparently law clerks have a hard time spelling) by an instruction to the jury on the limited use for which the evidence was available. The Court chose not to decide the general issue of whether or not bifurcation of different elements of a crime is allowed under the rules.

Helmers also appealed the District Court’s order posponing ruling on his motion in limine concerning evidence of prior bad acts. The Supreme Court said that, since Mr. Helmers didn’t raise any specific instances of bad acts, only a blanket motion covering all bad acts, the District Court couldn’t really evaluate the evidence. I think Mr. Helmers is probably not “Glee”ful about this opinion.

My apologies…

So, I ran into Lars Anderson the other day at the Courthouse and he asked me where on this blog he could find the Court Schedules. I told him that there was a link in the top right-hand corner of the front page of the blog.  Well, I was looking at the thing today and I found that, somehow, a rogue link got added to the top toolbar (I actually know how it got there, but I didn’t mean for it to be there). That new link left no room for the Court Schedules link, which got shoved off the page. Anyway, the problem should be corrected. The Court schedules should be readily available. Please let me know if they’re not.

Supreme Court of Iowa, Come on Down!

Two new opinions today:

State v. Shipley – Defendant who’s license is suspended for OWI test failure claimed that the admission of a certified abstract of his operational record without any foundational testimony violated a number of statutes and rules, not to mention the Confrontational Clause. Justice Appel, as usual, gives us a nice in-depth discussion of … zzzzzzzzzzzz … huh? Oh, sorry. A nod, though, to Justice Appel for using the word “curtsied” in his opinion (see p. 17). The bottom line is that the State offering a certified abstract of a defendant’s operation record without any foundational testimony doesn’t violate any statue or the Confrontation Clause. So, the Court vacated the Court of Appeals opinion and affirmed the District Court judgment.

In the Interest of K.B. – Another case on further review from the Court of Appeals. This one involves a change in custody ordered by the Juvenlie Court at a review hearing during a CINA proceeding. The legal guardian of the child lost her representation to a judicial appointment and was never appointed a new attorney. She received the DHS report at the time of the hearing and did not consent to the change. Nonetheless, the Court didn’t hold any evidentiary hearings and changed custody. The Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals (Guardians statement at the hearing was, ”I don’t agree, and I think K.B.’s been through  enough, and she needs to stay home with me”. Now that’s consent.) and reversing the District Court. They also added instructions to the District Court: “Before proceeding further, the juvenile court  should ensure that E.A.B.’s right to counsel, as set forth in section 232.89, is not violated.” Ouch. I don’t think I’d want that reprimand from the Supreme Court of Iowa, if I was a judge.

That’s all the fun for today.

Iowa Court of Appeals Opinions

A number of new opinions today. One concerning our firm, which I’m not sure was really a win or a loss. I guess, considering we represented the appellee/cross-appellant and it was affirmed, I’ll put it in the win column.

There are a number of certiorari cases, most related to Board of Adjustment action. I don’t remember that many of those in the past.

One that is kind of fun to read is this one. I’m glad all of the officers I deal with are fairly reasonable.

Also, a shout out to Associate District Judge Russell Keast for being reversed in a juvenile delinquency adjudication. Who knew that interference with official acts required some active, rather than passive, disobedience to police directives?

Congrats to Waterloo on its new juice bar.

And finally, this guy was just not Goodenough to win. Sorry. I couldn’t help it.

NPET in the News

Here’s a link to a New York Times story about the Postville raids. It features none other than NPET’s own Sara Smith. Here is the essay that the story is about. Interesting stuff.

Mmmm…Tasty

With the caption of the case reading “The Pillsbury Company, Inc. v. Wells Dairy, Inc.“, you would expect the Iowa Supreme Court’s newest opinion to be fairly sweet. It turns out it’s a contracts case and an appeal of a grant of summary judgment, at that.

Pillsbury (dough-boy giggle) entered into a contract with Wells (has anyone ever actually seen a blue bunny?) whereby Wells (I never realized they make Bomb Pops) would make Haagen-Dazs (I’m not sure I’ve ever tried it) ice cream. Wells (their Light 85 (now just “Light”) yogurt is pretty good) suffered an explosion at one of its plants and production was interrupted. Pillsbury (I haven’t tried the toaster strudel, but it looks good) later assigned its interest in Haagen-Dasz (interesting flavors, though) to a new joint venture with Nestle’s (mmm…chocolate). Pillsbury (they make Totino’s, too?) later sued Wells (I think Weight Watchers ice cream treats is an oxymoron) over its lost profits related to the explosion.

The fight is first about whether Pillsbury (I’m a big fan of biscuits) is the real party in interest. The District Court said it’s not, because of the assignment. The Supreme Court says the assignment is ambiguous as to whether the claim against Wells (ooo…chocolate malt cups) was actually assigned, so there should be no summary judgment on that basis.

Wells’ (BIG Mississippi Mud Ice Cream Sandwich doesn’t sound that appetizing) second argument is that the force majeure clause in the contract between Wells (hmmm…Jolly Rancher Ice Pop) and Pillsbury (crescent rolls!) lets Wells (Cool Tubes Orange Sherbet will cool you off) off the hook. They’re reading it in such a way that for most force majeure incidents, it doesn’t matter whether Wells (Bunny Tracks is pretty good) could have reasonably prevented the explosion, the clause says they don’t have any liability. The Supreme Court tells Wells (I’m running out of interesting products) that you actually have to read the whole clause and read it within the context of the rest of the contract and its execution. Using Minnesota law (as pleaded by the parties) the Court decides that Wells’ (they have a variety of ice cream bars) reading is incorrect and that Pillsbury (maybe I should try to enter the bake-off), or whomever is the real party in interest, should be allowed to try to prove that Wells (even king size cones) could have reasonably prevented the explosion.

FOOD FIGHT!

I’m tired of Office 2007

So, apparently, the Court system switched over to Microsoft Office 2007 sometime around the 1st of the year. So all of the schedules I receive from Johnson County are in docx format. I have Office 2007 on my work computer, but I have a Mac at home with Office X (2004). For those who don’t know, Office 2007 documents are not automatically compatible with earlier versions of Office. This means that I’m not able to open documents in the docx format from my home computer, which makes posting the schedules a little difficult, at times. So, I apologize for that. I imagine there’s a competition or antitrust lawsuit out there somewhere because of this and I am totally on board with that.

Here’s the latest in Linn County

Here is the latest order concerning the flooding in Linn County. Mainly, Jones County is no longer accepting Linn County filings and there is no more faxing of signed orders. Appearently there are still some telephone issues for some of the offices.