1. a. Unless required for the disposition of ex parte matters specifically authorized by
statute, a presiding officer in a contested case shall not communicate directly or indirectly
with any person or party in connection with any issue of fact or law in that contested case,
except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate as shall be provided for by
agency rules.
b. However, without such notice and opportunity for all parties to participate, a presiding
officer in a contested case may communicate with members of the agency, and may have the
aid and advice of persons other than those with a personal interest in, or those engaged in
personally investigating, prosecuting, or advocating in, either the case under consideration
or a pending factually related case involving the same parties so long as those persons do not
directly or indirectly communicate to the presiding officer any ex parte communications they
have received of a type that the presiding officer would be prohibited from receiving or that
furnish, augment, diminish, or modify the evidence in the record.
2. Unless required for the disposition of ex parte matters specifically authorized by
statute, parties or their representatives in a contested case and persons with a direct or
indirect interest in such a case shall not communicate, directly or indirectly, in connection
with any issue of fact or law in that contested case, with a presiding officer in that contested
case, except upon notice and opportunity for all parties to participate as shall be provided
for by agency rules.
3. If, before serving as the presiding officer in a contested case, a person receives an ex
parte communication relating directly to the merits of the proceeding over which that person
subsequently presides, the person, promptly after starting to serve, shall disclose to all parties
any material factual information so received and not otherwise disclosed to those parties
pursuant to section 17A.13, subsection 2, or through discovery.
4. A presiding officer who receives an ex parte communication in violation of this section
shall place on the record of the pending matter all such written communications received, all
written responses to the communications, and a memorandum stating the substance of all
such oral and other communications received, all responses made, and the identity of each
person from whom the presiding officer received a prohibited ex parte communication, and
shall advise all parties that these matters have been placed on the record. Any party desiring
to rebut the prohibited ex parte communication must be allowed to do so, upon requesting
the opportunity for rebuttal within ten days after notice of the communication.
5. If the effect of an ex parte communication received in violation of this section is so
prejudicial that it cannot be cured by the procedure in subsection 4, a presiding officer who
receives the communication shall be disqualified and the portions of the record pertaining to
the communication shall be sealed by protective order.
6. The agency and any party may report any violation of this section to appropriate
authorities for any disciplinary proceedings provided by law. In addition, each agency by
rule shall provide for appropriate sanctions, including default, suspending or revoking a
privilege to practice before the agency, and censuring, suspending, or dismissing agency
personnel, for any violations of this section.
7. A party to a contested case proceeding may file a timely and sufficient affidavit alleging
a violation of any provision of this section. The agency shall determine the matter as part of
the record in the case. When an agency in these circumstances makes such a determination\n\nTue Dec 09 22:32:44 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 17A (50, 1)
§17A.17, IOWA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT 22\n\nwith respect to an agency member, that determination shall be subject to de novo judicial
review in any subsequent review proceeding of the case.
8. An individual who participates in the making of any proposed or final decision
in a contested case shall not have personally investigated, prosecuted, or advocated in
connection with that case, the specific controversy underlying that case, or another pending
factually related contested case, or pending factually related controversy that may culminate
in a contested case, involving the same parties. In addition, such an individual shall not
be subject to the authority, direction, or discretion of any person who has personally
investigated, prosecuted, or advocated in connection with that contested case, the specific
controversy underlying that contested case, or a pending factually related contested case
or controversy, involving the same parties. However, this section shall not be construed to
preclude a person from serving as a presiding officer solely because that person determined
there was probable cause to initiate the proceeding.
[C75, 77, 79, 81, §17A.17]
98 Acts, ch 1202, §19, 46; 2008 Acts, ch 1032, §201; 2016 Acts, ch 1073, §13
Referred to in §2C.9, 10A.318, 17A.9, 216.15, 421.17, 542.11
\n
Notes of Decisions
Kholeif v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 497 N.W.2d 804 (Iowa 1993).
· cites it 12× “Iowa Code § 17A.17(4) (1989). A further section of the act provides that a court reviewing a contested case “shall not itself hear any further evidence.”
Neumeister v. City Dev. Bd., 291 N.W.2d 11 (Iowa 1980).
· cites it 4× “of their areas invalid under the Budde district court decision; in the second division they sought the same relief, asserting (1) the annexation proceedings before the City Development Committee constituted an IAPA "contested case," therefore the city's representative, who was…”
Geringer v. Iowa Dep't of Human Servs., 521 N.W.2d 730 (Iowa 1994).
· cites it 24× “Iowa Code § 17A.17(3) (emphasis added). We are unable to sustain Ellen’s challenge to the director’s decision-making role based on the requirements of this statute.”
Anstey v. Iowa State Com. Comm'n, 292 N.W.2d 380 (Iowa 1980).
· cites it 4× “Along a similar line, some objectors complain that Chairman Van Nostrand violated the specific terms of section 17A.17(2) because of ex parte communications he had with employees of the petitioning utility.”
Fisher v. Iowa Bd. of Optometry Examiners, 510 N.W.2d 873 (Iowa 1994).
· cites it 4× “Iowa Code § 17A.17(3). We likewise have held that due process is violated when an agency is solely responsible for investigation, instigation, prosecution, and decision-making.”
Caylor v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 337 N.W.2d 890 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 6× “To the extent that the petitioner challenges the agency’s action concerning an affidavit asserting disqualification under Iowa Code § 17A.17(3), however, our review is de novo.”
Eaves v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 467 N.W.2d 234 (Iowa 1991).
· cites it 2× “Iowa Code section 17A.17(3) prohibits individuals who prosecute a contested case from participating in the making of any decision.”
Hartwig v. Bd. of Nursing, 448 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa 1989).
· cites it 4× “Iowa Code § 17A.17(3) (1989) (no explicit prohibition on combination of investigative and adjudicative functions).”
Rodine v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 434 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “In view of the careful safeguards against ex parte communications set up in section 17A.17, we find it difficult to allow county boards of adjustment to engage in ex parte communications with interested parties.”
Fisher v. Iowa Bd. of Optometry Examiners, 478 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 1991).
· cites it 4× “If the board was properly informed that a bias or similar challenge were made to its decision, it would be required to render a decision on that issue pursuant to section 17A.17. In doing so the board could make its deliberations part of the record subjecting them to judicial…”
— Iowa Code § 17A.17(1)(a) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 17A.17(2) — 1 case
Anstey v. Iowa State Com. Comm'n, 292 N.W.2d 380 (Iowa 1980).
“Along a similar line, some objectors complain that Chairman Van Nostrand violated the specific terms of section 17A.17(2) because of ex parte communications he had with employees of the petitioning utility.”
— Iowa Code § 17A.17(3) — 9 cases
Neumeister v. City Dev. Bd., 291 N.W.2d 11 (Iowa 1980).
“of their areas invalid under the Budde district court decision; in the second division they sought the same relief, asserting (1) the annexation proceedings before the City Development Committee constituted an IAPA "contested case," therefore the city's representative, who was…”
Fisher v. Iowa Bd. of Optometry Examiners, 510 N.W.2d 873 (Iowa 1994).
“Iowa Code § 17A.17(3). We likewise have held that due process is violated when an agency is solely responsible for investigation, instigation, prosecution, and decision-making.”
Geringer v. Iowa Dep't of Human Servs., 521 N.W.2d 730 (Iowa 1994).
“Iowa Code § 17A.17(3) (emphasis added). We are unable to sustain Ellen’s challenge to the director’s decision-making role based on the requirements of this statute.”
Eaves v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 467 N.W.2d 234 (Iowa 1991).
“Iowa Code section 17A.17(3) prohibits individuals who prosecute a contested case from participating in the making of any decision.”
Hartwig v. Bd. of Nursing, 448 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa 1989).
“Iowa Code § 17A.17(3) (1989) (no explicit prohibition on combination of investigative and adjudicative functions).”
— Iowa Code § 17A.17(4) — 9 cases
Kholeif v. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 497 N.W.2d 804 (Iowa 1993).
“Iowa Code § 17A.17(4) (1989). A further section of the act provides that a court reviewing a contested case “shall not itself hear any further evidence.”
Caylor v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 337 N.W.2d 890 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983).
“To the extent that the petitioner challenges the agency’s action concerning an affidavit asserting disqualification under Iowa Code § 17A.17(3), however, our review is de novo.”
Anstey v. Iowa State Com. Comm'n, 292 N.W.2d 380 (Iowa 1980).
“Along a similar line, some objectors complain that Chairman Van Nostrand violated the specific terms of section 17A.17(2) because of ex parte communications he had with employees of the petitioning utility.”
— Iowa Code § 17A.17(7) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 17A.17(8) — 1 case
Geringer v. Iowa Dep't of Human Servs., 521 N.W.2d 730 (Iowa 1994).
“Iowa Code § 17A.17(3) (emphasis added). We are unable to sustain Ellen’s challenge to the director’s decision-making role based on the requirements of this statute.”
— Iowa Code § 17A.17(j) — 1 case
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.