Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Myron Dennis Behm, Burton J. Brooks, Bobby Lee Langston, David Leon Brodsky, Jeffrey R. Olson, and Geoff Tate Smith v. City of Cedar Rapids and Gatso USA, Inc.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided January 25, 2019No. 16-1031Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

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

I. Introduction.

I generally join the court's opinion except for part V.A (Preemption) and part VI (Unlawful Delegation).

In our original decision, I dissented as to part V.A, concurred as to result in part VI.A-G, and dissented as to part VI.H (Unlawful Delegation Challenge as a Result of Calibration). Because the court was equally divided on part VI.H, the district court's ruling on unlawful delegation as a result of calibration was affirmed by operation of law. Today's rehearing does not affect part VI.H.

In light of today's…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Gary Hughes v. City of Cedar RapidsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2016
  2. Bunger Ex Rel. Bunger v. Iowa High School Athletic Ass'nSupreme Court of Iowa · 1972
  3. City of Des Moines v. Iowa Dep't of Transp. & Iowa Transp. Comm'nSupreme Court of Iowa · 2018
  4. City of Hollywood, a political subdivision of the State of Florida v. Eric AremDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2014
  5. Warren County Board of Health v. Warren County Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Iowa · 2002

2 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