Martin v. Raytheon Co.
497 N.W.2d 818
Iowa
1993
Check Treatment

*1 III. Amount the Valuations. was left with ap cost arrived at

valuations ap used two cost The assessor

proach. adjusted reflect the market

proaches, City Woodbury in Sioux

conditions market He determined value

County. the first method at assets under

taxable at

$2,137,529and the second method

$1,911,067. experts de Post-Newsweek’s as value taxable

termined market $2,082,617 approach

sets under cost $2,229,135. court, we find the evi-

Like the district ap- cost supporting the use

dence evidence

proach is reliable

concerning the of valuation used methods ex-

by the assessor and defendants’ adopt district court’s valua-

perts. We $2,000,000 correctly reflecting

tion of taxable here market value of the assets judgment.

and affirm

AFFIRMED. Wilson; MARTIN; Evelyn Keith

Connie Parsons;

Wilson; Betsy George Par

sons; Tauke; Ryan; David A.W. J. Wilson, Wilson, Sonja

Annie Brandon Wilson, Minors, Ryan Wilson, Appel

Their Next Friend Keith

lants, COMPANY, Corporation, A

RAYTHEON Inc., Refrigeration, Amana

Corporation, Appellees.

Supreme of Iowa. Court 24,

Rehearing April Denied

819 fy a class of residents of North Dakota. cross-appeal raises the third whether the court abused its discretion certifying the class statewide Iowa and expanding involved. Trial courts are vested with broad of class ac discretion certification v. R. tions. Kramersmeier G. Dickinson & Co., 1989); Vig N.W.2d Cross, 743- naroli Blue (Iowa 1985). Our review is limited to determining whether discretion was abused, 743, i.e., Vignaroli, 360 N.W.2d decision that the district court’s was based clearly are or on untenable Kramersmeier, 440 unreasonable. N.W.2d at 875. Procedure 42.6

I. provides respect jurisdiction this with classes: for multistate may Aa. court of this state exercise any person is a jurisdiction over who suing being or sued member of the Michael M. Sellers Gary R. Fischer and if: Jensen, Dreher, Simpson, Sell- jurisdiction exists or A basis Kaiser, Butters, ers, Adams & for Harvey, against person would exist in a suit Moines, P.C., appellants. Des for state; or under the law this Hileman, Holtman, Richard G. Stephen J. The state of residence of Simmons, Jr., Per- M. Peters of and James member, by action law similar to Ellwood, Rapids, for rine, Albright Cedar ”, made its residents “b subdivision appellees. of the courts of subject jurisdiction to the state. this MeGIVERIN, C.J., by Considered is a of this state who b. resident LARSON, CARTER, HARRIS, suing being sued in of a class or member NEUMAN, JJ. subject jurisdic- state is another LARSON, Justice. if similar class ac- of that state tion jurisdiction tion law it extends challenge appeal and state. to this certifying a the district court an order of Pro- added.) Rules of Civil under Iowa (Emphasis plain- representative 42.2-6. cedure plaintiffs’ refused deny- the court erred complain that tiffs class be- certify a nationwide beyond Iowa. ing certification of to establish plaintiffs had failed cause the erred that the court assert un- jurisdiction “minimum contact” basis statewide class without certifying Kramersmeier, 42.6(a)(1). See der rule request from ar- 440 N.W.2d at 875-76. in- action to scope of the expanding error, constitutional gue that this was We af- additional related clude interpreta- that an They contend appeals. firm on both require traditional as to of this rule so tion to class ac- requirements minimum contact issues: the appeal raises two The direct plaintiffs denies nonresi- tion of all denial of certification court’s and state the federal rights under members, certi- and its refusal dent class ground immuni- II. In the second privileges constitutions. appeal, and the defendants’ cross- for process due claus- ty, equal protection, parties challenge scope appeal, the implicated, es of constitutions both the certification order on nonconstitutional Co. argue. They cite *3 plaintiffs The claim the court 797, 105 Shutts, 472 S.Ct. U.S. plaintiffs at least certified all should have (1985).1 L.Ed.2d reciprocity in North Dakota because of the respond that the provisions of Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure The defendants 42.6(a)(2). Dakota, they argue, North is their constitutional plaintiffs have waived only Iowa the state besides that raise in the arguments by failing to them Rule. adopted the Uniform Class Action plaintiffs reply that district court. N.D.R.Civ.P. See in arguments they raised the constitutional procedure rule of civil their motion under argue plaintiffs that the 179(b) enlarge ruling. We do the court’s (1) to specifically request did not a of subclass motion, they residents, (2) In agree. plead not the Dakota failed to North rule, prove case North Dakota’s Phillips the Petroleum and merely cited specific ruling failed a on the to court should treat “the district stated 179(b) motion, rule issue Procedure as 42.6 invalid present any to evidence that class failed requires minimum con to that it the extent members resided North Dakota. plaintiffs.” tacts of preservation to of in the As the error oblique to constitutional reference court, plaintiffs district the that contend enough rights specific to alert the is not they reciprocity provision rule raised the of This reference court to the issue. district argument, the North Dakota 42.6 thus states no to support in their filed in of their re- brief interpretation an would be on which such quest for “nationwide class certification.” any refer of It not to the “invalid.” does We do not believe this was sufficient. unconstitutionality that grounds of not plaintiffs specifically request did now; fact, rely the plaintiffs residents, of class North Dakota request the court to motion does not even men- concede that North Dakota was not interpretation find an is unconsti- that such evidentiary record. hold tioned We agree at all. We that the constitu- tutional it was not an abuse of discretion for arguments tional have been waived. to of of court refuse certification cir- North Dakota residents these plaintiffs' argu alternative cumstances. ment, plaintiffs satisfy all that nonresident In a related the defendants jurisdictional traditional minimum contact that court claim their rejected. is of requirements, also Most improperly expanded original scope potential plaintiffs nothing did nonresident by (1) expanding types the class action products purchase manufac involved; (2) expanding the Many them had no con tured in Iowa. statewide, plaintiffs expand class of thus Iowa, dealing strictly tacts all with ing originally certi number intermediary distributors of the through fied; (3) adding to “users” These potential previously “purchasers limited to and own purchasers passive whose relation merely ers.” minimum ship Iowa cannot constitute with agree rulings that all of these were We jurisdictional contacts traditional to well within the broad discretion accorded Al-Jon, Inc. v. Garden standards. See the district court. Metal, Inc., Iron & Street 1981). AFFIRMED ON BOTH APPEALS. argue judgment against an not the court diction to enforce eventual do 42.6(a)(1) interpretation plaintiff of rule erred in class We therefore do in the action. way require to minimum contacts as a such a as not address issue. certification, juris- prerequisite opposed CARTER, (concurring specially). Justice opinion on the majority

I concur doing, I do in this case. In so raised

issues suggest identification that the

not intend have members who

of those with should be contacts the state

minimum certification. prerequisite *4 & ELECTRIC GAS

IOWA-ILLINOIS

COMPANY, Light Iowa Power & Com Company,

pany, Interstate Power

Plaintiffs, Company,

The Home Insurance

Appellant, VEATCH, Appellee.

BLACK

Supreme Court of Iowa.