The Iowa Supreme Court will kick off its 2025-26 term with oral arguments in nine cases scheduled for Sept. 9 and 10. Four cases will be submitted to the Court without oral argument. Following are brief summaries of these cases. [Go to On Brief’s “Cases in the Pipeline” page to read documents filed in these cases.]
The justices will also travel to Bettendorf Sept. 16 to hear oral arguments in one case at 7 p.m. at the Bettendorf High School. On Brief will post a summary of that case closer to the oral argument. The Court will also travel to the University of Iowa College of Law in October, to Drake Law School in March 2026, and to Fairfield in April 2026 as part of the Court’s effort to give more Iowans the opportunity to witness the appellate process.
State v. Hawkins
Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 9, 9 a.m.
Questions: Was there sufficient evidence to convict a defendant of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse; and, did police officers err in failing to recite the Miranda warning?
Frederick Hawkins seeks further review of a Dec. 4, 2024, Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming his conviction by the Story County District Court on three counts of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse. In his application to the Iowa Supreme Court for further review, Hawkins argues the evidence was insufficient to establish that he held a specific intention to engage in one of the forms of contact outlined in the statutory definition of “sex act,” that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was capable of forming specific intent at the time of the offense, and that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress his statements to police officers on the basis of an alleged Miranda violation.
State v. Kepner
Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 9, 9 a.m.
Question: Was testimony from an expert witness wrongly excluded from a criminal trial based on the trial court’s conclusion that the expert was commenting on the credibility of an eyewitness?
Pat Kepner seeks further review of a Mar. 5 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming his conviction by a Boone County jury on two counts of indecent exposure and holding that the trial court did not commit error by excluding testimony from an expert on witness identification. In his application to the Iowa Supreme Court seeking further review of the Court of Appeals ruling, Kepner argues the district court erred in denying admission of the eyewitness identification expert based on its conclusion that the expert’s testimony was commenting on the credibility of witnesses’ testimony.
Iowa Northern Railway Co. v. Floyd County Board of Supervisors and Cerro Gordo County Board of Supervisors, acting as Trustees for Joint Drainage District Nos. 6 and 56
Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 9, 9 a.m.
Question: Does federal law giving the federal government exclusive right to regulate railroads bar two Iowa drainage districts’ plan to construct a culvert through a railroad embankment?
The Floyd County Board of Supervisors and the Cerro Gordo County Board of Supervisors, acting as Trustees for Joint Drainage District Nos. 6 and 56, seek further review of a Jan. 9 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming the Floyd County District Court’s holding that the drainage districts’ proposal to install a new drainage culvert through Iowa Northern Railway’s embankment is preempted by federal law. That law gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over railroad transportation and the construction or operation of railroad tracks. In seeking further review of the Court of Appeals decision, the drainage districts argue that their plan to install a new culvert by boring through the embankment without disturbing the railroad’s operations is not preempted by federal law. And, they argue that under common law and Iowa statutory law, a railroad cannot obstruct the free flow of water in its natural course. An amicus curiae brief was filed with the Court in this case by the Iowa Drainage District Association in support of the defendant-appellant drainage districts.
State v. Meisheid
Will be submitted to the Court Sept. 9 without oral argument.
Question: Was a suspect holding a handgun in the presence of two sheriff’s deputies displaying a dangerous weapon “toward” the officers in a “threatening manner”?
Matthew Meisheid seeks further review of a Jan. 9 Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming Meisheid’s conviction by a Washington County jury on two counts of assault on a peace officer while displaying a dangerous weapon, and affirming his sentence to serve the mandatory minimum of five years on each count with both sentences to be served concurrently. The Court of Appeals concluded there was sufficient evidence that Meinsheid displayed a handgun in a threatening manner, and that the trial court understood it had discretion to reduce the mandatory minimum sentence and expressly considered mitigating factors. In seeking further review of the Court of Appeals decision, Meisheid argues there is insufficient proof that he displayed a dangerous weapon “toward” the officers in a “threatening manner” by citation to body camera video he claims shows he did not display his weapon in the direction of the deputies but instead was moving away from them.
Wyldes v. State of Iowa
Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 9, 1:30 p.m.
Question: Should a man convicted of murder 38 years ago receive a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that could prove his actual innocence?
Donald Lee Wyldes Jr. appeals the Wayne County District Court’s denial of his application for post-conviction relief seeking to overturn his 1987 conviction for first-degree murder and attempted murder in the shooting death of Ronald Starnes outside his home in rural Wayne County. Wyldes argues on appeal that he is actually innocent of murdering Starnes and that his conviction should be overturned based on newly discovered evidence. For example, Wyldes cites a shift in consensus among forensic scientists since his conviction regarding the reliability of evidence used by a State criminologist who testified that the type of gun used to shoot Starnes was a the same type of gun owned by Wyldes based on his analysis indicating a unique mark on shell casings found at the crime scene. Wyldes raises several issues on appeal, including arguing that the district court erred in holding that the newly discovered evidence did not entitle him to a new trial, in failing to find that the newly discovered evidence demonstrates that he is actually innocent, and in granting summary disposition of his constitutional claims.
Amicus curiae briefs were filed with the Court in support of Wyldes by the Innocence Network, an affiliation of organizations that provide pro bono legal and investigative services to individuals seeking to prove innocence of crimes for which they have been convicted, and by university criminal law scholars, scientists and staticians.
In the Matter of the Estate of Rex L. Felten
Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 9, 1:30 p.m.
Question: Did the Clinton County District court wrongly enforce a no-contest provision that blocked a former beneficiary from challenging the validity of her late father’s revised will?
Kathy Felten appeals the Clinton County District Court’s decision enforcing a provision in her father’s will that barred her from contesting the will based on the legal doctrine that a person who attacks a will forfeits their interest in the estate, which courts have recognized as intended to dissuade such challenges. Felton argues on appeal that the district court erred in enforcing the no-contest provision because she contested her father’s will in “good faith” and for “probable cause,” terms the Iowa Supreme Court has not recently interpreted and which she urges the Court to clarify in the interest of courts’ role in seeking the truth about a will’s validity.
State v. Manning
Will be submitted to the Court Sept. 9 without oral argument.
Question: Did a district court err in allowing the introduction of a police officer’s body camera footage of a convenience store video without proper authentication?
The State seeks further review of a Feb. 19 Iowa Court of Appeals decision reversing the conviction by a Polk County jury of Terence Manning Jr. on a charge of willful injury causing serious injury. The Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in admitting a police officer’s body camera recording of surveillance video from a convenience store surveillance video recording–a video of a video showing Manning attacking another person–because it lacked proper authentication that the evidence is what it is claimed to be. In its application seeking further review of the Court of Appeals decision, the State argues the Court of Appeals erred in concluding it could only consider the trial record at the time the district court admitted the video, whereas the State argues Iowa appellate courts may consider the entire record when deciding whether a party properly authenticated evidence.
State v. Hidlebaug
Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 10, 9 a.m.
Question: Did the Iowa Court of Appeals lack jurisdiction to hear a defendant’s appeal of conditions of his sentence that he had agreed to in his initial plea agreement?
Christopher Hidlebaugh seeks further review of a Jan. 23 Iowa Court of Appeals decision concluding it lacked jurisdiction over Hidlebaugh’s attempted appeal of his sentence in Dallas County District Court to a term of up to 15 years based on his guilty plea to a sex offender registry violation. Under the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend a suspended sentence with probation if Hidlebaugh provided proof that he had purchased a home by the time of sentencing. Hidlebaugh had not purchased a home by the time of the sentencing hearing and the district court imposed the agreed-upon sentence. The Court of Appeals concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Hidlebaugh failed to show good cause as required in cases where a defendant receives an agreed-upon sentence. One member of the three-judge Court of Appeals panel filed a separate concurring opinion to say that, while she agreed the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, she wrote separately to state that “incarcerating a defendant based solely on his inability to follow through with a financial undertaking is unconstitutional.”
Fogle v. Clay Elementary School-Southeast Polk Community School District, et al.
Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 10, 9 a.m.
Question: Do the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act and its heightened pleading requirements apply to claims brought under the Iowa Civil Rights Act?
Clay Elementary School-Southeast Polk Community School District, Superintendent Dirk Halupnik, Principal Andrea Bruns, and teacher Carla Rivas appeal the Polk County District Court’s denial of their motion seeking summary judgment dismissal of claims by Benjamin and Amanda Fogle that the defendants violated the civil rights of their son, P.F., based on the Fogles’ claims he was bullied and sexually harassed by other students in his fifth-grade class based on his sex. The district court dismissed the Fogles’ bullying claim but otherwise denied the motion, and it held that the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act and its heightened pleading requirement do not apply to claims under the Iowa Civil Right Act. On appeal, the defendants argue that claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act are encompassed by the Municipal Tort Claims Act and that the Fogles failed to meet the Act’s qualified immunity provision that a plaintiff “must state with particularity the circumstances constituting the violation and that the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” This is a companion case with Hall v. Southeast Polk Junior High school–Southeast Polk Community School District, et al.
Hall v. Southeast Polk Junior High School–Southeast Polk Community School District, et al.
Will be submitted to the Court Sept. 10 without oral argument.
Question: Do the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act and its heightened pleading requirements apply to claims brought under the Iowa Civil Rights Act?
Southeast Polk Junior High school–Southeast Polk Community School District, Superintendent Dirk Halupnik, Associate Superintendent Joseph Horton, Principal Michael Dailey, Assistant Principal Jacob Bartels, and math teacher Georgia Casner appeal the Polk County District Court’s dismissal of their motion to dismiss on summary judgment Ashley and Ryan Hall’s claims that the defendants violated the civil rights of their child, A.H., based on their assertions that A.H. was bullied by other students because of her physical appearance and because she received special education services. The district court dismissed the Halls’ bullying claim and dismissed the negligent supervision and training claim for failure to meet the heightened pleading standard under the Iowa Municipal Tort Claims Act, but otherwise denied the motion. On appeal, the defendants argue that claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act are encompassed by the Municipal Tort Claims Act and that the Halls failed to meet the Act’s qualified immunity provision that a plaintiff “must state with particularity the circumstances constituting the violation and that the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.” This is a companion case with Fogle v. Clay Elementary School-Southeast Polk Community School District, et al. which involves the same legal issues.
State v. Mahana
Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 10, 1:30 p.m.
Question: Does Iowa’s statute barring firearms possession by convicted felons violate the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions?
Austin Mahana appeals his conviction by the Cerro Gordo County District Court on a charge of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of Iowa Code Sections 724.25 and 724.26, which he argues on appeal are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the equivalent right to bear arms under the Iowa Constitution. Mahana had previously been convicted of carrying a loaded pistol in his car. That made him eligible for prosecution under Section 724.26, which makes it a crime for a person convicted of a felony to possess or transport a firearm or offensive weapon. That includes Mahana because his original firearms-possession conviction met the definition of a felony under Section 724.25. Mahana argues that Iowa’s statute prohibiting firearms possession by felons is unconstitutional in light of recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
State v. Lindaman
Scheduled for oral argument Sept. 10, 1:30 p.m.
Questions: Was a defendant’s constitutional right to face his accuser violated when a trial court allowed a child witness to testify via closed-circuit television?
Lynn Lindaman appeals his conviction by a Polk County jury for second-degree sexual abuse as a second sexually predatory offense based on evidence that he touched his eight-year-old granddaughter’s vagina. Lindaman raises five issues on appeal, including his assertion that the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront his accuser by allowing the child to testify via one-way closed-circuit television outside the presence of Lindaman and the jury. In response, the State urges the Court to reverse its 2024 decision in State v. White in which the Court held that testimony via held one-way closed circuit television violates the Iowa Constitution. The State cross-appeals the district court’s pre-trial ruling granting Lindaman’s motion to suppress his voluntary confession to police based on its finding that police officers violated Lindaman’s rights under Iowa Code Section 804.20, which requires that a person arrested or restrained be allowed to contact an attorney or family member.
Den Hartog Industries and West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tyler Dugan
Will be submitted to the Court Sept. 10 without oral argument.
Question: Did the Polk County District Court correctly interpret Iowa’s statute governing the calculation of workers’ compensation benefits?
Den Hartog Industries and West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. seek further review of a Jan. 9 Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming the Polk County District Court’s decision affirming a decision by the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner that determined that Tyler Dugan sustained an 8% functional impairment and awarded him industrial disability benefits based on a 15% reduction in his earning capacity as well as costs and continued medical care. Two members of a three-judge Court of Appeals panel concluded that Iowa Code Section 85.34(2)(v) recognizes two categories of compensation: one, if the employee returns to work at the same or greater pay, they are compensated for their functional impairment; and two, if the employee does not return to work at the same or greater pay, then the industrial disability calculation applies. A third member of the panel dissented, writing that the text of the statute is plain and unambiguous and that it requires that Dugan be compensated based only on his function impairment resulting from his injury and not in relation to his earning capacity.
The post Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in nine cases Sept. 9 and 10 appeared first on Nyemaster Goode On Brief.