Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Iowa » Court of Appeals » 2006 » MICKEY WHITE and REGINA ANGELL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. CITY OF CRESTON, IOWA, CRESTON WATERWORKS and CRESTON WATER DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees.
MICKEY WHITE and REGINA ANGELL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. CITY OF CRESTON, IOWA, CRESTON WATERWORKS and CRESTON WATER DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees.
State: Iowa
Court: Court of Appeals
Docket No: No. 6-703 / 06-0433
Case Date: 10/11/2006
Preview:IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 6-703 / 06-0433 Filed October 11, 2006 MICKEY WHITE and REGINA ANGELL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. CITY OF CRESTON, IOWA, CRESTON WATERWORKS and CRESTON WATER DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Union County, Darrell Goodhue, Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal the grant to summary judgment dismissing their claim for intentional interference with a business relationship and emotional distress. AFFIRMED.

Martin L. Fisher of Fisher, Fisher & Fisher, P.C., Adair, for appellant. William L. Dawe and Apryl M. DeLange of Hopkins and Huebner, P.C., Des Moines, and Arnold O. Kenyon III of Kenyon & Nielsen, P.C., Creston, for appellee.

Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaithswaran, J., and Robinson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2005).

2

SACKETT, C.J. The City of Creston sought to locate a new water tower in close proximity to land rented to senior citizens for manufactured home placement. Plaintiffsappellants, Mickey White and Regina Angell, the owners of the land, sued defendants-appellees, the City of Creston, Iowa (City), Creston Waterworks, and the Creston Water Department, seeking an injunction prohibiting the placement of the water tower in the planned location and seeking damages for nuisance, emotional distress, and interference with a prospective business advantage. The district court granted a temporary injunction and the water tower was located in another location. The court subsequently granted defendants' motion for

summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' action. The plaintiffs contend the district court erred in (1) finding the location of the water town was a discretionary function of the city, (2) in dismissing their claims for interfering with a business relationship and emotional distress. We affirm. We review a motion for summary judgment for correction of errors at law. Pinkerton v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., 588 N.W.2d 679, 680 (Iowa 1998). The moving party must show the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and is entitled to judgment on the merits as a matter of law. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3) (2005). Discretionary Function. The plaintiffs contend the City's actions are not within the discretionary function exception to Iowa Code section 670.4(3) (2005). Essentially they argue that while the actions taken by the City are part of the political process, the City did not appropriately consider necessary factors of the process. The City asserts the decision of where to place the water tower was a

3

judgment-based determination and the type of decision the discretionary function was designed to shield. The district court found that in choosing the site for the water tower, the City's decision falls squarely within the discretionary function exception. First, the court found that choosing a location for the water tower involved an element of discretion. Second, the court stated that "[i]f the site selection for a municipal water tower doesn't involve a policy-driven analysis, it is difficult to imagine what would." Generally, a municipality is liable for its torts; however, an exception applies for certain discretionary functions. See Iowa Code
Download MICKEY WHITE and REGINA ANGELL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. CITY OF CRESTON, IOWA

Iowa Law

Iowa State Laws
    > Iowa Gun Laws
    > Iowa Statutes
Iowa Tax
    > Iowa State Tax
Iowa Court
    > Iowa Courts
Iowa Labor Laws
Iowa Agencies

Comments

Tips