*1 Because trial court erred in prosecution
instructing on malicious submitting in
claim and intentional prospective
terference with business advan claim,
tage reversible error exists. There we vacate the decision of the
fore
appeals and reverse and remand judgment.
appeal from the OF
DECISION OP COURT APPEALS
VACATED; REVERSED AND REMAND-
ED. SCHULTZ, J., justices except
All concur part.
who concurs in and dissents in
SCHULTZ, (concurring Justice part). dissenting agree
I cannot must specific
reveal the his claim for otherwise,
pain suffering; I concur. majority opinion out, points
As the Iowa
R.Civ.P. 95 states order shall “[n]o
require any pleading appor- to itemize or claimed, unliquidated damages
tion nor to any part any portion
attribute thereof to I
the claim asserted.” While would hold it proper total to discover the amount of claimed,
damages I not require would apportion
party unliquidated to itemize
damages recognize I claimed. that rule 95 however, pleading;
is limited to I conclude spirit purpose spills
that the of the rule discovery procedures.
over into LUNDE, Plaintiff,
Paul D.
Judge Dale E. RUIGH and The Iowa Story County,
District Court for
Defendants.
No. 83-1091.
Supreme of Iowa.
Oct. *2 Lunde, Ames, pro D. se.
Paul Richards, Mary County Atty., for defend- ants. REYNOLDSON, C.J.,
Considered McCORMICK, SCHULTZ, HARRIS, CARTER, JJ.
CARTER, Justice. certiorari action original is an This brought in this court to a attorney fees awarded contempt pro- in a court-appointed ceeding. Lunde, an attor- D. plaintiff,
The Paul in a Jerry D. Skinner ney represented in the Iowa District contempt proceeding growing out of a Story County support decree. child relations domestic by attorney Lunde representation Such to court (hereafter pursuant plaintiff) finding indigen- following a and a Jerry D. Skinner cy on the by the district court “predictive evaluation” might result. McNabb jail term See (Iowa Osmundson, 1982). proceeding in the district
The produced a Skinner, client, Jerry D. sup- child pay court-ordered
for failure port jail imposed and a sentence was awarded no Upon punishment. entry record of that expenses fees or for the work undertaken judgment, filed on behalf of Skin- certiorari. original ner an certiorari action in this appointing mechanics of seeking illegality to establish compensating indigent persons counsel for pun- findings district and order court’s *3 imprisonment who face for of contempt proceeding. ishment in In the court was in our established deci McNabb action, plaintiff also asked on behalf of sion. The district court is to make such appointing rep- Skinner an order counsel to appointments based finding indigen- on a of granted him in court. We resent this the cy “predictive and a evaluation” that there appointed and petition for certiorari the a imprisonment. is likelihood of Id. at 14. Appellate office of the Defender to State The district court is fix and order the represent prosecuting origi- Skinner the compensation for court-appointed such nal certiorari action. Our decision on the using guidelines counsel the of Iowa Code upheld merits of that certiorari action the section 815.7. Id. at 17. of had which been made by upheld jail the district and the McNabb, In appointed, we albeit imposed sentence which had been on Skin- retroactively, the counsel who represented Ruigh, ner. See 351 Skinner N.W.2d the contemner in the certiorari action. (Iowa 1984). 182 procedure Such necessary rendered that case due to its seminal nature in the present original The certiorari action right creation of a indigent to counsel for the of seeks review of order district imprisonment. contemners face We (hereafter Ruigh Dale E. de- it appropriate rule, deem more general as a judge) allowing fees and related however, appointments counsel, that all of (a) expenses plaintiff representa- his for even for proceedings court, in this be made of tion Skinner in the con- district court by the district court. This is consistent proceedings, (b) tempt preparation and his provisions with the of Iowa Rule of Crimi filing petition and of Skinner’s for writ of 26.1(1) nal applies Procedure to crim certiorari this court. We these appeals. inal If the district court fails or issues inverse order. appoint refuses to requested counsel when Representation Application I. Fee for so, do application for of Preparation Contemner the of of may then be made to this court. Petition Writ Certiorari. for of noted, unduly It although deny has would be harsh to plaintiff As been compensation prepared petition the reasonable for of certiorari for time expense peti to this court in and preparing the Skinner v. mat- incurred in Ruigh ter, subsequent representation present tion for of Skin- certiorari case sim ply applied ner in that matter by wrong was handled because he to the appellate appointment. defender’s for staff. Plaintiff's We therefore sustain the for only claim fees in the certiorari purposes action is writ for directing the dis expended therefore limited to the work in trict court make a determination such preparing filing and expenses and fees and following issuance of necessary out-of-pocket expenses incident procedendo in this action.
thereto. II. Application Fee Representa- for claim, passing on this the defendant tion Contemner in the District Court. not doubt entitlement for holding fees these services under the application Plaintiff’s for fees ex- Osmundson,
of McNabb v. 315 penses N.W.2d 9 for services represent- (Iowa 1982),but believed that an for ing order Skinner in the district court under court payment only of such fees could made appointment sought compensation for 30 under direction Accordingly, of this court. hours and 8 attorney minutes of time and
569
Herrick,
out-of-pocket expenses. The
Walters v.
$85.76
(Iowa 1984),
requested
compensation
for
796-98
we observed that there
The
challenges
district
attorney
types
time was
are two
to trial court
$1808.
out-of-pocket
ex-
determining compensation
claimed
orders
court-
court allowed
in full but
penses
appointed counsel; (1)
be reimbursed
award-
asserting
tó
those
time.
legal
ap-
ed
an
$990
incorrect
standard has been
fees;
plied
(2)
asserting
those
rendered
nature of the services
an abuse of discretion in
application
court,
in the district
shown
proper legal
pointed
standard.
out
We
categorized
can be
in Walters that:
as follows:
scope
depends
Our
of review
what
drafting
hrs. 50
21
mins.
Research
being
considered.
file
hrs. mins.
of court
Review
assertion
le-
Plaintiffs
that an incorrect
*4
3 hrs. mins.
with client
Conferences
applied
gal
was
on
standard
is reviewed
opposing
with
Conferences
10 mins.
error. When an
standard is
incorrect
proceedings
3 hrs. mins.
Courtroom
applied
findings
remand
we
new
30 hrs. 8 mins.
application of
the correct
standard.
plaintiff’s compen-
fixing the amount of
In
legal
applied
When a correct
standard is
sation,
purported to
judge
the defendant
circumscribed;
greatly
we
our review is
perti-
of the
we deemed
factors
affirm
the trial
unless
court’s discretion
Plaintiff de Lastly, plaintiff's we consider judge improperly went as outside the applications court-ap sertion that fee considering record in the matter of custom pointed attorneys should ary be heard charges for similar services in the com judges other than those that, before whom the munity. We note to the extent this services were in those done, instances it after the defendant appellate sought where review has been specific finding amade that “no evi *5 respect with to the court’s decision. The presented dence the customary as to premise upon argument which this is based charges community in the for representing judge is that a appealed whose decision is persons proceedings.” in Follow against will biased the be who has ing the finding, judge that defendant re challenged it. We are not that convinced knowledge sorted to his own relevant potential the for is bias substantial in the which, based although on situations not posed in plaintiffs argu circumstances identical to a domestic relations balancing any potential ment. for bias case, sufficiently analogous pro were to presents against which this circumstance meaningful vide a comparison. standard of advantages having the obvious the fee In so the proceeding, defendant application determined the most suggestion no more than our follow in case, adopt familiar with the we decline to Denato, Parrish v. the suggests. rule which (Iowa 1978) that a court must consider all competent relevant and evidence We have considered claims submitted advanced disposition the parties, well and in of this matter as its own sustain the knowl edge expertise in to the extent that the and determining reason judge is to por- now directed attorneys able fees. plaintiffs tion of claim for fees and ex- Next, plaintiff suggests the de penses which preparation relates to the judge, the filing of the for certiorari Skin- compensation for services under ner v. Ruigh. respects, all other the appointment, failed to take into con writ is annulled. spent he represent sideration time had PART; WRIT SUSTAINED IN AN- ing prior appoint Skinner to the order of NULLED IN PART. ment he unlikely is ever to paid. We find this claim to be without justices except SCHULTZ, J., All concur application merit. In his concurs and dissents in part. stated: SCHULTZ, (concurring Justice No fees and expenses have been shown dissenting part). for any prior time appoint- the date of ment, were, although fact, services I majority concur with the opinion except performed prior to that portion date and ex- allowing attorney fees for the of the certiorari action that preparation I would not allow filed in this court. appointed attorney was not
fees when perform the service. The
by the court portion denied this of the fees
district court appointed Lunde was not
because Mr. Jerry D. in the Skinner certiorari
represent
action, application ap- not because wrong made to the court.
pointment was appointment application for
The client’s preparation precede should
of counsel except emergency. action eases application should be filed
Generally, this If the
in the district court. precede preparation
does not
action, the court will not have choice of counsel. Choice counsel
the selection important assure the lowest cost to the
competent counsel at by his
county. Plaintiff in this case action choice of
deprived the of a It preparation of the action. is not under these circum- deny fees
harsh
stances. *6 Olds, Betty Appellants,
F.M. OLDS Lynn and Carol Anne
Candice OLDS Stiff, Appellees.
No. 83-1359.
Supreme of Iowa.
Oct.