IOWA SUPREME COURT
REVIEW
Ryan G. Koopmans and Gary Dickey Jr.
E-Mail: rkoopmans@nyemaster.com | E-Mail: gary@dickeycampbell.com
November 2014
www.nyemaster.com
©2012 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
THE CADY COURT
Chief Justice Mark
Cady
Justice David
Wiggins
Justice Thomas
Waterman
November 2014
2
Justice Daryl
Hecht
Justice Edward
Mansfield
Justice Brent
Appel
Justice Bruce
Zager
www.nyemaster.com
©2014 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
Term System
• Modeled after SCOTUS term system
• Arguments September – April
• Term ends and decisions issued by June
30
• Average time between oral argument and
decision: 112 days
• Median time between oral argument and
decision: 87 days
November 2014
3
www.nyemaster.com
©2012 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
Further Review
Old Rule 6.1103
•
Supreme Court may grant further review if the Court of
Appeals:
• Made an error of law.
• Rendered a decision that conflicts with a published COA
or Supreme Court opinion.
• Failed to consider a potentially controlling
constitutional provision.
• Decided a case that should have been retained by the
Supreme Court.
November 2014
4
www.nyemaster.com
©2012 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
Further Review
New Rule 6.1103
•
•
“Further review by the supreme court is not a matter of
right, but of judicial discretion” and “will not be granted in
normal circumstances.”
Factors:
• COA decision conflicts with Supreme Court decision on
an important matter.
• Substantial question of constitutional law or important
question of law.
• Important question of changing legal principles.
• Issue of broad public importance.
November 2014
5
www.nyemaster.com
©2012 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
SOURCE
OF
JURISDICTION
2013 – 2014
0%
1%
2011 – 2012
2%
1%
19%
Further Review
35%
2% 1%
17%
Direct Appeal
Attorney Discipline
51%
Judge Discipline
Certiorari
Certified Question
28%
43%
November 2014
6
www.nyemaster.com
©2014 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
REVERSAL RATES
District Court
Court of Appeals
Decided Affirmed Reversed Mixed
%
%
%
37
24%
November 2014
7
57%
19%
Decided
84
Affirmed
Reversed
Mixed
Other
%
%
%
%
45%
40%
14%
2%
www.nyemaster.com
©2014 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
Oral Argument
November 2014
8
www.nyemaster.com
©2012 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
It’s a (relatively) hot bench
Average # of
Questions
November 2014
9
Cady
2.92
Wiggins
3.51
Appel
8.09
Hecht
2.77
Waterman
3.73
Mansfield
6.55
Zager
2.93
www.nyemaster.com
©2012 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
Does opinion assignment
matter?
Average Questions Per Argument
All Cases
Cady
Wiggins
Hecht
Appel
Waterman
Mansfield
Zager
November 2014
10
2.92
3.51
2.77
8.09
3.73
6.55
2.93
When
When Not
Writing for Writing for the
the Court
Court
6.38
2.24
9.14
2.57
6.88
1.92
16.33
7.52
7.44
2.93
11
5.64
4.5
2.63
www.nyemaster.com
©2012 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
THE CADY COURT
November 2014
11
www.nyemaster.com
©2014 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
DISSENTION
November 2014
12
Term
Total
Nonunanimous
% of Nonunanimous
2011
121
19
16%
2012
83
30
36%
2013
87
32
37%
www.nyemaster.com
©2014 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
Mansfield
Waterman
Hecht
Appel
Wiggins
Cady
60%
40%
39%
60%
70%
63%
Wiggins
30%
13%
16%
90%
83%
Appel
40%
23%
19%
90%
Hecht
33%
17%
19%
Waterman
68%
90%
Mansfield
63%
Cady
Zager
JUSTICE AGREEMENT
NON-UNANIMOUS CASES 2013
Zager
November 2014
13
www.nyemaster.com
©2014 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
Mansfield
Waterman
Hecht
Appel
Wiggins
Cady
55%
34%
30%
62%
61%
63%
Wiggins
52%
24%
30%
86%
86%
Appel
37%
19%
18%
93%
Hecht
50%
18%
24%
Waterman
52%
93%
Mansfield
43%
Cady
Zager
JUSTICE AGREEMENT
NON-UNANIMOUS CASES 2012
Zager
November 2014
14
www.nyemaster.com
©2012 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
November 2014
15
Zager
Mansfield
Waterman
Hecht
Appel
Wiggins
Cady
JUSTICE AGREEMENT
NON-UNANIMOUS CASES 2011
Cady
74%
93%
83%
16%
28%
26%
--
Wiggins
53%
13%
11%
89%
89%
--
Appel
44%
0%
12%
89%
--
Hecht
42%
00%
0%
--
Waterman
62%
100%
--
Mansfield
67%
--
Zager
-www.nyemaster.com
©2012 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
WHO
DECIDES?
% in the
majority
November 2014
16
Cady
89
Wiggins
63
Appel
70
Hecht
60
Waterman
39
Mansfield
40
Zager
60
www.nyemaster.com
©2012 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
OVERALL OPINION AUTHORSHIP
Cady
Wiggins
Appel
Hecht
Waterman
Mansfield
Zager
Total
Majority Concurring Dissenting
Opinions Opinions Opinions
Opinions
16
13
2
1
19
14
1
4
21
16
4
1
16
11
0
5
25
15
1
9
30
20
3
7
18
12
1
5
145
101
12
32
Mansfield
Waterman
Majority Opinions
Appel
Wiggins
Concurring
Opinions
Zager
Dissenting
Opinions
Cady
Hecht
0
November 2014
17
10
20
30
40
www.nyemaster.com
©2014 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
OVERALL OPINION AUTHORSHIP
3-YEAR TOTAL
Majority
Opinions
69
55
53
50
48
38
40
Total Opinions
98
80
79
70
59
55
52
Mansfield
Wiggins
Waterman
Appel
Zager
Cady
Hecht
0
20
40
60
80
Concurring
Opinions
7
10
8
10
2
9
1
100
Dissenting
Opinions
22
15
18
10
9
8
11
120
Mansfield
Wiggins
Waterman
Appel
Zager
Majority Opinions
Concurring Opinions
Dissenting Opinions
Cady
Hecht
November 2014
18
www.nyemaster.com
©2014 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
Sources of disagreement
•
Whether to depart from US Supreme Court decisions interpreting
similar or identical constitutional provisions and statutes.
•
Search and seizure generally (Pals, Ochoa, Baldon, Short)
•
Deference to political branches and others. But see Quest v.
Iowa Board of Tax Review (i.e., the end of RACI)
•
Sentencing (especially the juvenile kind)
•
Tort -- Thompson v. Kaczinski fallout
November 2014
19
www.nyemaster.com
©2012 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
A Court divided on search and seizure
and sentencing
• State v. Short (searching probationers)
• State v. Lyle (juvenile sentencing and
mandatory minimums)
November 2014
20
www.nyemaster.com
©2014 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
•
[S]entencing parameters is an area of the law for
which courts are required to give great deference
to the policies of the legislature as written into
sentencing statutes. The individual-assessment
approach introduced by the majority in this case
will only permit the courts to substitute their
judgment for that of the legislature in cases to
follow. This approach is contrary to the principles
of judicial restraint and separation of powers.
State v. Bruegger (Cady, C.J. dissenting)
November 2014
21
www.nyemaster.com
©2014 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
•
Upon exercise of our independent judgment, as we
are required to do under the constitutional test, we
conclude that the sentencing of juveniles according
to statutorily required mandatory minimums does
not adequately serve the legitimate penological
objectives in light of the child's categorically
diminished culpability. . . . The constitutional
analysis is not about excusing juvenile behavior,
but imposing punishment in a way that is
consistent with our understanding of humanity
today. State v. Lyle (Cady, C.J.)
November 2014
22
www.nyemaster.com
©2014 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
Ineffective Assistance; plain error;
traffic stops
• Rhoades v. State
• State v. Harrison
November 2014
23
www.nyemaster.com
©2014 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
Elections
•
Chiodo v. The section 43.24 Panel: When can criminals
vote and run for office?
•
Bertrand v. Mullin: Defamatory campaign ads?
November 2014
24
www.nyemaster.com
©2014 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
Admin decisions: No deference; complete
deference; something different
•
SZ Enterprises, LLC v. Iowa Utilities Board: No deference for you!
•
Iowa Farm Bureau Federation v. Environmental Protection
Commission: It’s completely up to you.
•
Rent-A-Center, Inc. v. Iowa Civil Rights Commission (agencies
aren’t bound by private-party arbitration agreements)
November 2014
25
www.nyemaster.com
©2014 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.
Civil rights: state law
•
Pippen v. State
(disparate impact race discrimination claim;
court opines on ICRA v. Title VII)
•
Goodpaster v. Schwan’s
(interplay between ICRA and ADAAA)
•
Palmer College of Chiropractic v. Davenport Civil
Rights Commission
(question of accommodating blind student)
November 2014
26
www.nyemaster.com
©2012 Nyemaster Goode, P.C.