In contested cases:
1. Irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence should be excluded. A finding
shall be based upon the kind of evidence on which reasonably prudent persons are
accustomed to rely for the conduct of their serious affairs, and may be based upon such
evidence even if it would be inadmissible in a jury trial. Agencies shall give effect to the
rules of privilege recognized by law. Objections to evidentiary offers may be made and shall
be noted in the record. Subject to these requirements, when a hearing will be expedited and
the interests of the parties will not be prejudiced substantially, any part of the evidence may
be required to be submitted in verified written form.
2. Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, if the original
is not readily available. Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to compare the
copy with the original, if available.
3. Witnesses at the hearing, or persons whose testimony has been submitted in written
form if available, shall be subject to cross-examination by any party as necessary for a full
and true disclosure of the facts.
4. Official notice may be taken of all facts of which judicial notice may be taken and
of other facts within the specialized knowledge of the agency. Parties shall be notified
at the earliest practicable time, either before or during the hearing, or by reference in
preliminary reports, preliminary decisions or otherwise, of the facts proposed to be noticed
and their source, including any staff memoranda or data, and the parties shall be afforded
an opportunity to contest such facts before the decision is announced unless the agency
determines as part of the record or decision that fairness to the parties does not require an
opportunity to contest such facts.
5. The agency’s experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge may be
utilized in the evaluation of the evidence.
[C75, 77, 79, 81, §17A.14]
Referred to in §17A.9, 68B.31, 421.17
\n
Notes of Decisions
Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Comm'n & Jermaine Stapleton, 895 N.W.2d 446 (Iowa 2017).
· cites it 8× “Under Iowa Code section 17A.14, [a] finding shall be based upon the kind of evidence on which reasonably prudent persons are accustomed to rely for the conduct of their serious affairs, and may be based upon such evidence even if it would be inadmissible in a jury trial.”
Schmitz v. Iowa Dep't of Human Servs., 461 N.W.2d 603 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 22× “Thus, it is well settled that there should be no blanket rule prohibiting agencies from considering hearsay evidence because the probative value and reliability of hearsay vary greatly. See id. § 352, at 1011 (quoting Davis, Hearsay in Administrative Hearings, 32 Geo.”
Stone Container Corp. v. Castle, 657 N.W.2d 485 (Iowa 2003).
· cites it 12× “Iowa Code § 17A.14(4) (emphasis added). The employer’s attempt to apply this statute to the use of a dictionary, medical or otherwise, as a guide to interpretation of legislative enactments is misguided.”
IBP, Inc. v. Al-Gharib, 604 N.W.2d 621 (Iowa 2000).
· cites it 6× “In administrative proceedings, statutory law allows the fact finder to base a finding upon the kind of evidence on which reasonably prudent persons are accustomed to rely for the conduct of their serious affairs, and may be based upon such evidence even if it would be…”
McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co., 288 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1980).
· cites it 4× “14(1), The Code, which provides that, subject to certain requirements, “when a hearing will be expedited and the interests of the parties will not be prejudiced substantially, any part of the evidence may be required to be submitted in verified written form.”
State v. Wright, 456 N.W.2d 661 (Iowa 1990).
· cites it 5× “” Iowa Code § 17A.14(1) (test of reliable hearsay evidence that is admissible in administrative proceedings); McConnell, 327 N.”
GE Money Bank v. Morales, 773 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 2009).
· cites it 2× “See Iowa Code § 17A.14(1) (establishing the same standard for the admissibility of evidence in a contested case tried under the administrative procedure act).”
McConnell v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 327 N.W.2d 234 (Iowa 1982).
· cites it 4× “Section 17A.14(1) provides that a “finding shall be based upon the kind of evidence on which reasonably prudent persons are accustomed to rely for the conduct of their serious affairs, and may be based upon such evidence even if it would be inadmissible in a jury trial.”
Brewbaker v. State Bd. of Regents, 843 N.W.2d 466 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “See Iowa Code § 17A.14(4) (“Official notice may be taken of all facts of which judicial notice may be taken and of other facts within the specialized knowledge of the agency.”
Quaker Oats Co. v. Ciha, 552 N.W.2d 143 (Iowa 1996).
· cites it 2× “See Iowa Code § 17A.14 (stating all reliable evidence is admissible in an agency contested case proceeding provided the evidence is not privileged, irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious).”
Heidemann v. Sweitzer, 375 N.W.2d 665 (Iowa 1985).
· cites it 2× “Rules of evidence governing administrative agencies in contested cases are set forth in the five subsections of Iowa Code section 17A.14. These rules provide guidelines to hearing officers which are less detailed than the Iowa Rules of Evidence which govern most court…”
— Iowa Code § 17A.14(1) — 30 cases
Schmitz v. Iowa Dep't of Human Servs., 461 N.W.2d 603 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990).
“Thus, it is well settled that there should be no blanket rule prohibiting agencies from considering hearsay evidence because the probative value and reliability of hearsay vary greatly. See id. § 352, at 1011 (quoting Davis, Hearsay in Administrative Hearings, 32 Geo.”
McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co., 288 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1980).
“14(1), The Code, which provides that, subject to certain requirements, “when a hearing will be expedited and the interests of the parties will not be prejudiced substantially, any part of the evidence may be required to be submitted in verified written form.”
IBP, Inc. v. Al-Gharib, 604 N.W.2d 621 (Iowa 2000).
“In administrative proceedings, statutory law allows the fact finder to base a finding upon the kind of evidence on which reasonably prudent persons are accustomed to rely for the conduct of their serious affairs, and may be based upon such evidence even if it would be…”
— Iowa Code § 17A.14(3) — 1 case
State v. Wright, 456 N.W.2d 661 (Iowa 1990).
“” Iowa Code § 17A.14(1) (test of reliable hearsay evidence that is admissible in administrative proceedings); McConnell, 327 N.”
— Iowa Code § 17A.14(4) — 4 cases
Stone Container Corp. v. Castle, 657 N.W.2d 485 (Iowa 2003).
“Iowa Code § 17A.14(4) (emphasis added). The employer’s attempt to apply this statute to the use of a dictionary, medical or otherwise, as a guide to interpretation of legislative enactments is misguided.”
Brewbaker v. State Bd. of Regents, 843 N.W.2d 466 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013).
“See Iowa Code § 17A.14(4) (“Official notice may be taken of all facts of which judicial notice may be taken and of other facts within the specialized knowledge of the agency.”
— Iowa Code § 17A.14(5) — 3 cases
IBP, Inc. v. Al-Gharib, 604 N.W.2d 621 (Iowa 2000).
“In administrative proceedings, statutory law allows the fact finder to base a finding upon the kind of evidence on which reasonably prudent persons are accustomed to rely for the conduct of their serious affairs, and may be based upon such evidence even if it would be…”
Schmitz v. Iowa Dep't of Human Servs., 461 N.W.2d 603 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990).
“Thus, it is well settled that there should be no blanket rule prohibiting agencies from considering hearsay evidence because the probative value and reliability of hearsay vary greatly. See id. § 352, at 1011 (quoting Davis, Hearsay in Administrative Hearings, 32 Geo.”
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.