I’ll take the Supreme Court Opinions with a side of onion rings

So, four new opinions from The Supremes today. I was getting disappointed until I read the last one, but we’ll get to that.

Holstein Electric v. Breyfogle – An injury to a wrist should be compensated as an injury to the arm, rather than one to the hand.

In re the Marriage of Briddle – Can’t we all just get along. It appears that the District Court took revenge on the husband in this case for being difficult during the discovery process. Not really a seminal case, in my opinion.

State of Iowa v. McKinney- District Court ordered Bremer County to pay material witness fees to someone held as a material witness to testify at his father’s accused killer. Supremes say the State should pay those, not the County.

And now, for your, um, pleasure (or Mr. Isaac’s):

State v. Isaacs- Mr. Isaacs was convicted of indecent exposure for masturbating outside the bedroom windows of two different women. The women heard noises outside, but never looked to see what they were. There was some knocking on one window and something rubbed against the screen of the other. One of the women called the police, but they didn’t find anything at her house. As one officer was leaving, he saw Isaacs standing at the other woman’s window. The officer yelled, Isaacs turned around, exposing himself to the officer, and took off running. The officer tackled the man, turned him over, placed Isaascs parts back in his pants and arrested him.

Isaacs was convicted of one count of interference with official acts, two counts of harassment and one count of indecent exposure. He appealed the indecent exposure conviction. The Supremes say he’s right. To be convicted of indecent exposure, a person must expose his genitals to another to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either party. While Isaacs certainly had exposed himself to satisfy his own sexual desires, no other person actually saw his genitals until the officer yelled. Since Isaacs only inadvertently exposed himself to the officer when he turned and ran, it was not for the purpose of arousing or satisfying either of their respective sexual desires.

Thanks Justice Ternus. Fun stuff. Have a good weekend.

By the way, I almost referred to Isaacs as a seminal case, but chose not to. You can thank me later.

Iowa Supreme Court

Three new opinions today. Two family law and one auto insurance. One of the family law cases comes from a split court, which we really haven’t seen much of lately.

In re Marriage of Powers – A 4-3 decision vacating the Court of Appeals judgment giving primary physical care of the kids to Dad and affirming the District Court order giving primary care to Mom. My experience with family law cases is that they can get really nasty. So emotional and full of spite. This is no different, even between the Justices.

In re Marriage of Ginsberg – Ex-husband didn’t pay debt allocated to him in divorce decree. Ex-wife paid it and asked the Court to enforce the decree. Supreme Court again vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the District Court. The Court of Appeals might want to take note, here, the Supreme Court seems to be laying down the smack.

Thomas v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company – When you buy an auto insurance policy and specifically ask that your husband not be covered when he’s driving, don’t try to make a claim on the policy for an injury your husband received while he was driving.

Happy Weekend

Iowa Supreme Court Opinions

The Iowa Supreme Court last week issued opinions in three new cases. Below are the keys to remember from each.

1. Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Adams: Depression and migraine headaches can be a mitigating factor in lawyer discipline issues, but only if the attorney suffered from them when the misconduct occurred, and only if the attorney asked for help from someone else while suffering from them.

2. Barry C. Simpson, et al. v. Luke Kollasch, et al.: Hog confinement buildings produce odors, but it’s impossible to tell if they will constitute nuisances until they are built and operating.

3. Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Weaver: Don’t run your mouth to a newspaper reporter about the ethics of a judge unless it’s impossible to prove the truth or falsity of what your saying.

Certainly I make light of these opinions to some extent. But where’s the fun in talking about them if you can’t take a few liberties here and there?

New Supreme Court Justice

Congrats to a couple of corridor lawyers who are finalists for the seat that is pening on the Iowa Supreme Court. Judge David Baker of the Iowa Court of Appeals and Connie Alt from Shuttleworth & Ingersoll are two of the three finalist. I can’t say that I personally know either of them, but I often see Judge Baker as I’m walking up the steps of the Linn County Courthouse, where his office is. Good luck to these two. They give the Corridor a 66 2/3% chance of seating the next Iowa Supreme Court Justice.

Justice Streit, you disappoint me

The Iowa Supreme Court released four new opinions today. One deals with expansion of nonconforming uses under a City Ordinance, one with the admission of prior bad acts in a sexual abuse trial and two (1, 2) with tax sale/redemption procedures.

I have to say, I always look forward to Justice Streit’s opinions because they, from my experience, usually contain some reference to pop culture or rock music. I was disappointed today when I read the opinion he authored because there were no such references. so much for making the law fun.

A funny story about Justice Streit:

During the swearing-in ceremony through which I became a member of the Iowa Bar, one of the people being sworn in had the last name Streit. I don’t remember exactly when it happened or who said it, but someone made the comment, as a part of the ceremony, that Justice Streit’s daughter was being sworn in. Justice Streit called out from the audience, “Actually, she’s my wife.” High comedy and a red-faced person at the microphone.

For the last time, assault is a specific intent crime…

So, the Iowa Supreme Court yet again “clarified” that assault is, in fact, a specific intent crime in Iowa. Despite a number of recent cases on the issue, the seemingly exasperated Justices released an opinion today that again ruled that assault, this time in the context of dependent adult abuse, requires that the assaulting party intend to offend the party being assaulted. Congrats to corridor attorneys Vernon Squires and Nikki Johnson at Bradley & Riley for prevailing in that case.

The court also released an opinion today reversing a District Court decision holding that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the custody, care and support of two children  who had been adopted by one woman without terminating the parental rights of the biological mother (the adopted parent’s partner). The Court basically told the District Court it doesn’t matter if the adoption was contrary to Iowa law. It happened…and that’s final. The District Courts in Iowa apparently have subject matter jurisdiction over anything, according to my reading of the opinion.

State of the Judiciary and Court of Appeals

Chief Justice Ternus gave her State of the Judiciary Speech to the state legislature today. The full text and a summary of her speech are available here. She proposed changes to the Juvenile Court system and announced additions to the State’s drug court system. Both noble causes, in my opinion.

She also announced that the Supreme Court has chosen to scale back the idea of full public access to court records. The original thought, with the initiation of online filing in the state court system, was that all documents would be readily available to the public. Now, people have to go to the Clerk’s office to look through a file. Justice Ternus now says that the Supreme Court has decided that such a level of availability will have a chilling effect on the use of the courts because people don’t want they’re court documents out for everyone to see. Instead, full access to documents will be available on public kiosks at the Clerks’ offices and to select users (attorneys, litigants, etc.).

If there is already full access to Court records at the Clerks’ offices, why add additional computer systems to the mix? That doesn’t make sense to me.

Also, new Court of Appeals opinions today. You can find them here.

New Supreme Court Opinions

This seems to be all I blog about anymore. I’ll have to change that.

Two new opinons today. One upholding the payment of meterial witness fees of $40 per day to a person who was held in jail as a material witness for 53 days. He argued that he should have gotten the equivalent of minimum wage each day. The Court declined to go there.

The other was another challenge to the prohibition against sex offenders living within 2000 feet of daycares and preschools. The Defendant argued that his moving from his old residence to his new (which was within 2000 feet of something) was allowed under the grandfather clause of the statute. The Court decided that the grandfather clause only allowed those living within the 2000 foot radius to continue living in the same place. It does not allow them to move from one place to the next. I don’t exactly understand the Attorney General’s take on this. Perhaps it was the C0unty Attorneys, I guess, but they agreed with the Defendant that the statute was vague. The Court decided it’s not.

Anyway, more fun to come, I’m sure.

New Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Opinions

Both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals released new opinions Friday. One of the Supreme Court cases will surely give rise to a legal malpractice suit, as a personal injury lawsuit was dismissed because the original notice and petition were not served within 90 days of filing. Even though a 1st District judge granted Plaintiff’s ex parte request for an extension of the service deadline because the parties were in settlement discussions. Another held constitutional the civil penalty portion of the deferred judgment provisions of the criminal code.

Linn County Associate Juvenile Judge Susan Flaherty asked that one of the Court of Appeals cases be forwarded to the attorneys practicing in juvenile court. That case discussed the impropriety of the same attorney being appointed guardian ad litem and attorney for a 12-year-old girl who didn’t want her mother’s parental rights terminated, though the guardian ad litem determined that termination was in her best interests. Interesting stuff.

New Iowa Supreme Court Opinions Last Week

The Supreme court last week released two opinions. One concerned the dismissal of a beneficiary’s lawsuit against the trustees of his father’s trust. The other concerned a worker’s com issue. I don’t think either was particularly groundbreaking, so I won’t go into them too anymore.