1. When the grant, denial, or renewal of a license is required by Constitution or statute
to be preceded by notice and opportunity for an evidentiary hearing, the provisions of this
chapter concerning contested cases apply.
2. When a licensee has made timely and sufficient application for the renewal of a license
or a new license with reference to any activity of a continuing nature, the existing license
does not expire until the application has been finally determined by the agency, and, in case
the application is denied or the terms of the new license limited, until the last day for seeking
judicial review of the agency order or a later date fixed by order of the agency or the reviewing
court.
3. No revocation, suspension, annulment, or withdrawal, in whole or in part, of any license
is lawful unless, prior to the institution of agency proceedings, the agency gave written, timely
notice by personal service as in civil actions or by restricted certified mail to the licensee
of facts or conduct and the provision of law which warrants the intended action, and the
licensee was given an opportunity to show, in an evidentiary hearing conducted according to
the provisions of this chapter for contested cases, compliance with all lawful requirements
for the retention of the license.
[C75, 77, 79, 81, §17A.18]
98 Acts, ch 1202, §20, 46
Referred to in §17A.9, 99B.3, 99B.55, 207.14, 237A.2, 252J.8, 272D.8, 421.17, 423.36, 455B.474, 459.315A
\n
Notes of Decisions
Heidemann v. Sweitzer, 375 N.W.2d 665 (Iowa 1985).
· cites it 2× “2d 427, 428-29 (Iowa 1983); Iowa Code § 17A.18 (1981) (person challenging revocation must show “compliance with all lawful requirements for the retention of the license”).”
McCrea v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 336 N.W.2d 427 (Iowa 1983).
“At the administrative hearing, Iowa Code § 17A.18(3), McCrea testified that he had attempted to urinate but “couldn’t do it.”
Gaskey v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., Motor Veh. Div., 537 N.W.2d 695 (Iowa 1995).
“Iowa Code §§ 17A.18(3), 321J.13(2). Gaskey, through counsel, argued the DOT failed to show the deputy had reasonable grounds to believe Gaskey was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and the deputy failed to follow proper procedures for invoking the implied consent law.”
McDowell v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., Motor Veh. Div., 356 N.W.2d 234 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984).
“; Iowa Code § 17A.18(3) (1983). *236 McDowell’s principal argument on appeal is that a person suffering from an insulin reaction lacks the mental capacity to withdraw consent to take a chemical test for blood alcohol level.”
Scott v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 604 N.W.2d 617 (Iowa 2000).
“of any license is lawful unless ... the licensee was given an opportunity to show, in an evidentiary hearing .”
Fort Dodge Sec. Police, Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue, 414 N.W.2d 666 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987).
“18(3) requires that an agency may not revoke a license unless the licensee is given the opportunity “in an evidentiary hearing conducted according to the provisions for [IAPA] for contested cases” to show compliance with lawful requirements or retention of the license.”
— Iowa Code § 17A.18(3) — 8 cases
McCrea v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 336 N.W.2d 427 (Iowa 1983).
“At the administrative hearing, Iowa Code § 17A.18(3), McCrea testified that he had attempted to urinate but “couldn’t do it.”
Gaskey v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., Motor Veh. Div., 537 N.W.2d 695 (Iowa 1995).
“Iowa Code §§ 17A.18(3), 321J.13(2). Gaskey, through counsel, argued the DOT failed to show the deputy had reasonable grounds to believe Gaskey was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and the deputy failed to follow proper procedures for invoking the implied consent law.”
McDowell v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., Motor Veh. Div., 356 N.W.2d 234 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984).
“; Iowa Code § 17A.18(3) (1983). *236 McDowell’s principal argument on appeal is that a person suffering from an insulin reaction lacks the mental capacity to withdraw consent to take a chemical test for blood alcohol level.”
Scott v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 604 N.W.2d 617 (Iowa 2000).
“of any license is lawful unless ... the licensee was given an opportunity to show, in an evidentiary hearing .”
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.