1. Notwithstanding section 9H.4, a farmers cooperative limited liability company may hold agricultural land in this state if it meets all of the following conditions:
a. The farmers cooperative limited liability company does not hold an interest in agricultural land of more than six hundred forty acres.
b. The farmers cooperative limited liability company does not produce, including by planting or harvesting, forage or grain on agricultural land in which the farmers cooperative limited liability company holds an interest. However, the farmers cooperative limited liability company may enter into an agreement under a lease or production contract with a person to produce the forage or grain, if the farmers limited liability company does not receive forage or grain in payment under the agreement. The lease or contract may specify the type of forage or grain that must be produced and provide that the farmers cooperative limited liability company has a right to purchase the forage or grain on the same terms and conditions as the highest bona fide offer received by the person for the forage or grain, within a period agreed to by the parties to the lease or production contract.
c. (1) Less than fifty percent of the interest in the farmers cooperative limited liability company is held by members which are parties to intra-company loan agreements. If more than one type of membership interest is established, less than fifty percent of the interest in each type of membership shall be held by members which are parties to intra-company loan agreements.
(2) As used in subparagraph (1), a type of membership interest in a limited liability company includes a protected series of a series limited liability company as provided in chapter 489, subchapter XIV.
d. The farmers cooperative limited liability company does not own swine or contract for the care and feeding of swine, if a member of the farmers cooperative limited liability company is a regional cooperative association.
2. a. An interest in agricultural land held by a farmers cooperative limited liability company shall be attributable as an interest in agricultural land held by a member cooperative association of the farmers cooperative limited liability company. The member cooperative association shall be deemed to hold an interest in agricultural land held by the farmers cooperative limited liability company in proportion to the interest that the member cooperative association holds in the limited liability company.
b. Except to the extent provided in this paragraph, a member holding agricultural land by attribution shall be subject to landholding restrictions imposed pursuant to the Code, including sections 9H.4, 9H.5, 9I.3, and 501.103. However, notwithstanding section 9H.4, a cooperative association may hold an interest in any number of farmers entities, if the total\n\nTue Dec 09 22:33:50 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 10 (27, 0) 9 AGRICULTURAL LANDHOLDING RESTRICTIONS, §10.14\n\nnumber of acres held by the farmers entities and attributable to the cooperative association is six hundred forty acres or less.
c. The member cooperative association’s proportionate interest shall be calculated by multiplying the number of acres of agricultural land held by the farmers cooperative limited liability company by the percentage interest in the limited liability company held by the cooperative association as a member.
3. In the event of a transfer of an interest in the farmers cooperative limited liability company by operation of law, the farmers cooperative limited liability company may disregard the transfer for purposes of determining compliance with subsection 1 for a period of two years after the transfer. 98 Acts, ch 1110, §110, 301; 2008 Acts, ch 1162, §127, 154, 155; 2019 Acts, ch 26, §43, 53; 2021 Acts, ch 80, §4; 2023 Acts, ch 152, §148, 161 Referred to in §10.11\n\n SUBCHAPTER III PENALTIES \n
Notes of Decisions
State of Iowa v. Isaac Andrew Baldon III, 829 N.W.2d 785 (Iowa 2013).
· cites it 8× “LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.10(b), at 440–41 (4th ed. 2004)). Similarly, Justice Kennedy recognized the weakness of using consent predicated on the acceptance of adverse consequences in his concurring opinion in Ferguson v.”
State of Iowa v. Justin Dean Short, 851 N.W.2d 474 (Iowa 2014).
· cites it 4× “LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.10(c), at 542 (2012) [hereinafter Lafave, Search and Seizure] (observing a search performed by police officers could not pass muster under Griffin’s special-needs rationale).”
State of Iowa v. Christine Ann Kern, 831 N.W.2d 149 (Iowa 2013).
· cites it 2× “LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.10(c), at 533 (2012) [hereinafter LaFave].”
Matter of Est. of Snapp, 502 N.W.2d 29 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Kurtz, Kurtz on Iowa Estates, § 10.10, at 381-383 (2d ed. 1989). In this case, we find the provisions in the will, set forth earlier in this opinion, allowed Gene Jr.”
AmerUs Bank v. Pinnacle Bank, 51 F. Supp. 2d 994 (S.D. Iowa 1999).
· cites it 4× “” Article X, Section 10.10, entitled “Servi-cer’s Fee” further provides that “Servicer shall not receive a separate servicing fee under this Agreement.”
Egan v. Egan, 212 N.W.2d 461 (Iowa 1973).
“A concise statement of this exception appears in 2 Jones on Evidence, § 10.10 at 282 (Sixth Ed. 1972): “Where declarations by a person in possession of land are shown to be in disparagement of his title or adverse to his interest, the statements may be received against the…”
Amended October 15, 2014 State of Iowa v. Justin Dean Short (Iowa 2014).
· cites it 2× “LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.10(c), at 542 (2012) [hereinafter Lafave, Search and Seizure] (observing a search performed by police officers could not pass muster under Griffin’s special-needs rationale).”
State of Iowa v. Nicholas Dean Wright (Iowa 2021).
“LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.10, at 541 (6th ed. 2020). We agreed, stating that “[w]e bristle at the replacement of a regime of individualized suspicion with broad categorical judgments when general law enforcement searches of the home are…”
State of Iowa v. Nicholas Dean Wright (Iowa 2021).
“LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.10, at 541 (6th ed. 2020). We agreed, stating that “[w]e bristle at the replacement of a regime of individualized suspicion with broad categorical judgments when general law enforcement searches of the home are…”
State of Iowa v. Nicholas Dean Wright (Iowa 2021).
“LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.10, at 541 (6th ed. 2020). We agreed, stating that “[w]e bristle at the replacement of a regime of individualized suspicion with broad categorical judgments when general law enforcement searches of the home are…”
— Iowa Code § 10.10(a) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 10.10(a)(b) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 10.10(b) — 1 case
State of Iowa v. Isaac Andrew Baldon III, 829 N.W.2d 785 (Iowa 2013).
“LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.10(b), at 440–41 (4th ed. 2004)). Similarly, Justice Kennedy recognized the weakness of using consent predicated on the acceptance of adverse consequences in his concurring opinion in Ferguson v.”
— Iowa Code § 10.10(c) — 3 cases
State of Iowa v. Justin Dean Short, 851 N.W.2d 474 (Iowa 2014).
“LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.10(c), at 542 (2012) [hereinafter Lafave, Search and Seizure] (observing a search performed by police officers could not pass muster under Griffin’s special-needs rationale).”
State of Iowa v. Christine Ann Kern, 831 N.W.2d 149 (Iowa 2013).
“LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.10(c), at 533 (2012) [hereinafter LaFave].”
Amended October 15, 2014 State of Iowa v. Justin Dean Short (Iowa 2014).
“LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 10.10(c), at 542 (2012) [hereinafter Lafave, Search and Seizure] (observing a search performed by police officers could not pass muster under Griffin’s special-needs rationale).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.