bond requirement in Iowa

2025See In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 225 (Iowa 2016) (declining to apply the bond exception under section 232.116(3)(c) despite “some bond between” the parent and children, as the children had been out of the parent’s care for nearly two years and had “achieved stability” in another placement).

2025See In re M.W., 876 N.W.2d 212, 225 (Iowa 2016) (declining to apply the bond exception under section 232.116(3)(c) despite “some bond between” the parent and children, as the children had been out of the parent’s care for nearly two years and had “achieved stability” in another placement).

2024See 6 generally Star Equip., Ltd., 843 N.W.2d at 452–53 (addressing the bond requirement).

2024Co. v. City of Marion, 577 N.W.2d 657 , 659– 62 (Iowa 1998) (recognizing the interplay between sections of chapter 573 based upon the party’s status and the claims made and resolving those conflicts in the language of various sections); see also Star Equip., 843 N.W.2d at 454 (analyzing the reality of an exception to the bond requirement for “targeted small businesses” so as to allow subcontractors a remedy against the public entity for unpaid claims); Accurate Controls, Inc. v. Cerro Gordo Cnty.

2024Bd. of Supervisors, 627 F. Supp. 2d 976, 1007 (N.D.

2014See State v. DeCamp, 622 N.W.2d 290, 294 (Iowa 2001) (“[0]ur first task is to look to the language of the statute to determine the legislative intent.”)- The second paragraph of Iowa Code section 573.2 refers to the TSB bond waiver and states: If the requirement for a bond is waived pursuant to section 12.44, a person, firm, or corporation, having a contract with the targeted small business or with subcontractors of the targeted small business, for labor performed or materials furnished, in the performance of the contract on account of which the bond was waived, is entitled to any remedy provi

2014Id. (emphasis added). “ ‘[W]e give weight to explanations attached to bills as indications of legislative intent.’ ” Root v. Toney, 841 N.W.2d 83, 88 (Iowa 2013) (quoting City of Cedar Rapids v. James Props., Inc., 701 N.W.2d 673, 677 (Iowa 2005)). 3 We have not had occasion to interpret section 573.2 as amended in 1988.

2014In Graham v. Worthington, 259 Iowa 845, 865 , 146 N.W.2d 626, 639 (1966), the appellant raised an article VII, section 1 challenge to the state’s assumption of respondeat superior liability for the torts of state employees, arguing when “an employee of the state commits a tort, the employee is primarily liable, the state’s obligation secondary, and as a 13An ancillary benefit to the state is that the bond waiver promotes TSBs by enabling them to bid on public projects. 14We also recognize that the state has the ability to limit its exposure to subcontractors’ claims because it is the owner of

2014In Graham v. Worthington, 259 Iowa 845, 865 , 146 N.W.2d 626, 639 (1966), the appellant raised an article VII, section 1 challenge to the state’s assumption of respondeat superior liability for the torts of state employees, arguing when “an employee of the state commits a tort, the employee is primarily liable, the state’s obligation secondary, and as a 13An ancillary benefit to the state is that the bond waiver promotes TSBs by enabling them to bid on public projects. 14We also recognize that the state has the ability to limit its exposure to subcontractors’ claims because it is the owner of

2014Id. (emphasis added). “ ‘[W]e give weight to explanations attached to bills as indications of legislative intent.’ ” Root v. Toney, 841 N.W.2d 83, 88 (Iowa 2013) (quoting City of Cedar Rapids v. James Props., Inc., 701 N.W.2d 673, 677 (Iowa 2005)).3 We have not had occasion to interpret section 573.2 as amended in 1988.

2014Id. (emphasis added). “ ‘[W]e give weight to explanations attached to bills as indications of legislative intent.’ ” Root v. Toney, 841 N.W.2d 83, 88 (Iowa 2013) (quoting City of Cedar Rapids v. James Props., Inc., 701 N.W.2d 673, 677 (Iowa 2005)). 3 We have not had occasion to interpret section 573.2 as amended in 1988.

2014Id. (emphasis added). “ ‘[W]e give weight to explanations attached to bills as indications of legislative intent.’ ” Root v. Toney, 841 N.W.2d 83, 88 (Iowa 2013) (quoting City of Cedar Rapids v. James Props., Inc., 701 N.W.2d 673, 677 (Iowa 2005)).3 We have not had occasion to interpret section 573.2 as amended in 1988.

2014Id. (emphasis added). “ ‘[W]e give weight to explanations attached to bills as indications of legislative intent.’ ” Root v. Toney, 841 N.W.2d 83, 88 (Iowa 2013) (quoting City of Cedar Rapids v. James Props., Inc., 701 N.W.2d 673, 677 (Iowa 2005)). 3 We have not had occasion to interpret section 573.2 as amended in 1988.