Sierra Club Iowa Chapter, Linda Biederman, and Elwood Garlock v. Iowa Department of Transportation
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 71
Iowa2013Background
- Sierra Club Iowa Chapter and two Linn County members filed a petition for judicial review challenging IDOT's Highway 100 extension adjacent to Rock Island Preserve and through Rock Island County Preserve.
- IDOT's decision would affect endangered/threatened species and habitat in the preserves.
- District court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not seeking a declaratory order under Iowa Code 17A.9(1)(a).
- Sierra Club filed a Rule 1.904(2) posttrial motion to enlarge findings, which the district court denied.
- Sierra Club timely filed a notice of appeal after the Rule 1.904(2) ruling, triggering a tolling question for the appeal period.
- Supreme Court held: tolling valid; declaratory-order exhaustion required; matter ripe for adjudication; district court judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a Rule 1.904(2) posttrial motion toll an appellate deadline? | Sierra Club argues tolling applies due to timely posttrial motion. | IDOT contends no tolling beyond 30 days without timely posttrial motion. | Yes; tolling applies. |
| Must a party exhaust administrative remedies by obtaining a declaratory order before judicial review? | Exhaustion not required; court should decide on merits. | Exhaustion required; declaratory order is mandatory before review. | Yes; exhaustion required; petition barred. |
| Is the Sierra Club's claim ripe for adjudication without a declaratory order? | Ripeness exists due to imminent highway actions. | Ripeness not satisfied; agency should issue declaratory order first. | Ripeness; matter deemed ripe for adjudication. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGill v. Fish, 790 N.W.2d 113 (Iowa 2010) (accept petition facts as true for review on motion to dismiss)
- In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2005) (proper uses of Rule 1.904(2); preserving error)
- State v. Olsen, 794 N.W.2d 285 (Iowa 2011) (posttrial motion timing and purposes)
- Riley v. Boxa, 542 N.W.2d 519 (Iowa 1996) (exhaustion doctrine and administrative remedies)
- City of Waterloo v. Black Hawk Mut. Ins. Ass’n, 608 N.W.2d 442 (Iowa 2000) (preservation of error and review standards)
- Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa 2012) (using 1.904(2) to preserve error when facts are at issue)
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (preservation of error; appropriate use of posttrial motion)