Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Keith Puntenney, Laverne I. Johnson, Richard R. Lamb, Marian D. Johnson, Northwest Iowa Landowners Association, Iowa Farmland Owners Association, Inc., and the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter v. Iowa Utilities Board, and Office of Consumer Advocate and The Main Coalition, and Dakota Access, LLC

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided May 31, 2019No. 17-0423Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

WIGGINS, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I dissent from the majority's conclusion that the use of eminent domain does not violate the Iowa Constitution. I agree with the majority that incidental economic benefits alone are not enough for a taking to qualify as "for public use" under article I, section 18. However, I disagree that the Dakota Access pipeline fits within the "common carrier exception" for purposes of the Iowa Constitution. I also find fault in Dakota Access's use of eminent domain because it is unrelated to the purpose of the applicable…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Kelo v. City of New LondonSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  2. Adams v. Greenwich Water Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1951
  3. Square Butte Electric Cooperative v. HilkenNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1976
  4. In Re: Condemnation by Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. of Permanent and Temporary Rights of Way for the Transportation of Ethane, Propane, Liquid Petroleum Gas, and other Petroleum Products in the Twp. of North Middleton, Cumberland County, PA ~ Appeal of: R.S. MartinCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. Clark v. Gulf Power CompanyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1967

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API