Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 17A.19 (2026)

Judicial review

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Except as expressly provided otherwise by another statute referring to this chapter by name, the judicial review provisions of this chapter shall be the exclusive means by which a person or party who is aggrieved or adversely affected by agency action may seek judicial review of such agency action. However, nothing in this chapter shall abridge or deny to any person or party who is aggrieved or adversely affected by any agency action the right to seek relief from such action in the courts. 1. A person or party who has exhausted all adequate administrative remedies and who is aggrieved or adversely affected by any final agency action is entitled to judicial review thereof under this chapter. When agency action is pursuant to rate regulatory powers over public utilities or common carriers and the aggrievement or adverse effect is to the rates or charges of a public utility or common carrier, the agency action shall not be final until all agency remedies have been exhausted and a decision prescribing rates which satisfy the requirements of those provisions of the Code has been rendered. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate agency action is immediately reviewable if all adequate administrative remedies have been exhausted and review of the final agency action would not provide an adequate remedy. If a declaratory order has not been rendered within sixty days after the filing of a petition therefor under section 17A.9, or by such later time as agreed by the parties, or if the agency declines to issue such a declaratory order after receipt of a petition therefor, any administrative remedy available under section 17A.9 shall be deemed inadequate or exhausted. 2. Proceedings for judicial review shall be instituted by filing a petition either in Polk county district court or in the district court for the county in which the petitioner resides or has its principal place of business. When a proceeding for judicial review has been commenced, a court may, in the interest of justice, transfer the proceeding to another county where the venue is proper. Within ten days after the filing of a petition for judicial review the petitioner shall serve by the means provided in the Iowa rules of civil procedure for the personal service of an original notice, or shall mail copies of the petition to all parties named in the petition and, if the petition involves review of agency action in a contested case, all parties of record in that case before the agency. Such personal service or mailing shall be jurisdictional. The delivery by personal service or mailing referred to in this subsection may be made upon the party’s attorney of record in the proceeding before the agency. A mailing shall be addressed to the parties or their attorney of record at their last known mailing address. Proof of mailing shall be by affidavit. Any party of record in a contested case before an agency wishing to intervene and participate in the review proceeding must file an appearance within forty-five days from the time the petition is filed. 3. If a party files an application under section 17A.16, subsection 2, for rehearing with the agency, the petition for judicial review must be filed within thirty days after that application has been denied or deemed denied. If a party does not file an application under section 17A.16, subsection 2, for rehearing, the petition must be filed within thirty days after the issuance of the agency’s final decision in that contested case. If an application for rehearing is granted, the petition for review must be filed within thirty days after the issuance of the agency’s final decision on rehearing. In cases involving a petition for judicial review of agency action other than the decision in a contested case, the petition may be filed at any time petitioner is aggrieved or adversely affected by that action. 4. The petition for review shall name the agency as respondent, except as provided in sections 10A.324 and 20.34. All petitions for review shall contain a concise statement of:\n\nTue Dec 09 22:32:44 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 17A (50, 1) §17A.19, IOWA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT 24\n\n a. The nature of the agency action which is the subject of the petition. b. The particular agency action appealed from. c. The facts on which venue is based. d. The grounds on which relief is sought. e. The relief sought. 5. a. The filing of the petition for review does not itself stay execution or enforcement of any agency action. Unless precluded by law, the agency may grant a stay on appropriate terms or other temporary remedies during the pendency of judicial review. b. A party may file an interlocutory motion in the reviewing court, during the pendency of judicial review, seeking review of the agency’s action on an application for stay or other temporary remedies. c. If the agency refuses to grant an application for stay or other temporary remedies, or application to the agency for a stay or other temporary remedies is an inadequate remedy, the court may grant relief but only after a consideration and balancing of all of the following factors: (1) The extent to which the applicant is likely to prevail when the court finally disposes of the matter. (2) The extent to which the applicant will suffer irreparable injury if relief is not granted. (3) The extent to which the grant of relief to the applicant will substantially harm other parties to the proceedings. (4) The extent to which the public interest relied on by the agency is sufficient to justify the agency’s action in the circumstances. d. If the court determines that relief should be granted from the agency’s action on an application for stay or other temporary remedies, the court may remand the matter to the agency with directions to deny a stay, to grant a stay on appropriate terms, or to grant other temporary remedies, or the court may issue an order denying a stay, granting a stay on appropriate terms, or granting other temporary remedies. 6. Within thirty days after filing of the petition, or within further time allowed by the court, the agency shall transmit to the reviewing court the original or a certified copy of the entire record of any contested case which may be the subject of the petition. By stipulation of all parties to the review proceedings, the record of such a case may be shortened. A party unreasonably refusing to stipulate to limit the record may be taxed by the court for the additional costs. The court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record. 7. In proceedings for judicial review of agency action a court may hear and consider such evidence as it deems appropriate. In proceedings for judicial review of agency action in a contested case, however, a court shall not itself hear any further evidence with respect to those issues of fact whose determination was entrusted by the Constitution or a statute to the agency in that contested case proceeding. Before the date set for hearing a petition for judicial review of agency action in a contested case, application may be made to the court for leave to present evidence in addition to that found in the record of the case. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that the additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it in the contested case proceeding before the agency, the court may order that the additional evidence be taken before the agency upon conditions determined by the court. The agency may modify its findings and decision in the case by reason of the additional evidence and shall file that evidence and any modifications, new findings, or decisions with the reviewing court and mail copies of the new findings or decisions to all parties. 8. Except to the extent that this chapter provides otherwise, in suits for judicial review of agency action all of the following apply: a. The burden of demonstrating the required prejudice and the invalidity of agency action is on the party asserting invalidity. b. The validity of agency action must be determined in accordance with the standards of review provided in this section, as applied to the agency action at the time that action was taken. 9. The court shall make a separate and distinct ruling on each material issue on which the court’s decision is based.

\n

Tue Dec 09 22:32:44 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 17A (50, 1) 25 IOWA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT, §17A.19\n\n 10. The court may affirm the agency action or remand to the agency for further proceedings. The court shall reverse, modify, or grant other appropriate relief from agency action, equitable or legal and including declaratory relief, if it determines that substantial rights of the person seeking judicial relief have been prejudiced because the agency action is any of the following: a. Unconstitutional on its face or as applied or is based upon a provision of law that is unconstitutional on its face or as applied. b. Beyond the authority delegated to the agency by any provision of law or in violation of any provision of law. c. Based upon an erroneous interpretation of a provision of law whose interpretation has not clearly been vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency. d. Based upon a procedure or decision-making process prohibited by law or was taken without following the prescribed procedure or decision-making process. e. The product of decision making undertaken by persons who were improperly constituted as a decision-making body, were motivated by an improper purpose, or were subject to disqualification. f. Based upon a determination of fact clearly vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency that is not supported by substantial evidence in the record before the court when that record is viewed as a whole. For purposes of this paragraph, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) “Substantial evidence” means the quantity and quality of evidence that would be deemed sufficient by a neutral, detached, and reasonable person, to establish the fact at issue when the consequences resulting from the establishment of that fact are understood to be serious and of great importance. (2) “Record before the court” means the agency record for judicial review, as defined by this chapter, supplemented by any additional evidence received by the court under the provisions of this chapter. (3) “When that record is viewed as a whole” means that the adequacy of the evidence in the record before the court to support a particular finding of fact must be judged in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that detracts from that finding as well as all of the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that supports it, including any determinations of veracity by the presiding officer who personally observed the demeanor of the witnesses and the agency’s explanation of why the relevant evidence in the record supports its material findings of fact. g. Action other than a rule that is inconsistent with a rule of the agency. h. Action other than a rule that is inconsistent with the agency’s prior practice or precedents, unless the agency has justified that inconsistency by stating credible reasons sufficient to indicate a fair and rational basis for the inconsistency. i. The product of reasoning that is so illogical as to render it wholly irrational. j. The product of a decision-making process in which the agency did not consider a relevant and important matter relating to the propriety or desirability of the action in question that a rational decision maker in similar circumstances would have considered prior to taking that action. k. Not required by law and its negative impact on the private rights affected is so grossly disproportionate to the benefits accruing to the public interest from that action that it must necessarily be deemed to lack any foundation in rational agency policy. l. Based upon an irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable interpretation of a provision of law whose interpretation has clearly been vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency. m. Based upon an irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable application of law to fact that has clearly been vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency. n. Otherwise unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. 11. In making the determinations required by subsection 10, paragraphs “a” through “n”, the court shall do all of the following: a. Shall not give any deference to the view of the agency with respect to whether particular matters have been vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency.

\n

Tue Dec 09 22:32:44 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 17A (50, 1) §17A.19, IOWA ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT 26\n\n b. Should not give any deference to the view of the agency with respect to particular matters that have not been vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency. c. Shall give appropriate deference to the view of the agency with respect to particular matters that have been vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency. 12. A defendant in a suit for civil enforcement of agency action may defend on any of the grounds specified in subsection 10, paragraphs “a” through “n”, if that defendant, at the time the enforcement suit was filed, would have been entitled to rely upon any of those grounds as a basis for invalidating the agency action in a suit for judicial review of that action brought at the time the enforcement suit was filed. If a suit for civil enforcement of agency action in a contested case is filed within the time period in which the defendant could have filed a petition for judicial review of that agency action, and the agency subsequently dismisses its suit for civil enforcement of that agency action against the defendant, the defendant may, within thirty days of that dismissal, file a petition for judicial review of the original agency action at issue if the defendant relied upon any of the grounds for judicial review in subsection 10, paragraphs “a” through “n”, in a responsive pleading to the enforcement action, or if the time to file a responsive pleading had not yet expired at the time the enforcement action was dismissed. [C75, 77, 79, 81, §17A.19; 81 Acts, ch 24, §1, 2] 98 Acts, ch 1202, §22 – 24, 46; 2017 Acts, ch 54, §12; 2025 Acts, ch 92, §2 Referred to in §10A.322, 10A.330, 10A.601, 15.106E, 16.5E, 21.6, 22.8, 22.10, 23.5, 23.10, 80A.17, 90A.11, 92.22, 99A.6, 103.29, 103.31, 103.39, 105.27, 135.69, 139A.22, 152C.4, 156.16, 157.13, 169.15, 185.34, 214A.11, 216.17, 231.78, 252.27, 261B.3, 272C.3, 272C.6, 321.52, 321.560, 331.190, 368.22, 441.37B, 455I.9, 476.6, 514G.110, 514J.110, 522B.11, 522C.13, 522D.7, 522F.20, 533A.16, 535B.13, 535D.13, 542.14, 542B.27, 543D.21, 543E.18, 544A.15 Subsection 4, unnumbered paragraph 1 amended

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,475 cases (182 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Iowa Farm Bureau Fed'n, Iowa Renewable Fuels Ass'n, & Iowa Water Env't Ass'n, 850 N.W.2d 403 (Iowa 2014).
Iowa Farm Bureau Fed'n, Iowa Renewable Fuels Ass'n, & Iowa Water Env't Ass'n, 850 N.W.2d 403 (Iowa 2014). · cites it 137× “” Consequently, the fact that the IAPA permits direct review of administrative action, see Iowa Code § 17A.19, is immaterial. The point of our holding today is that Farm Bureau did not fit its challenge within the narrow parameters that permit a court to set aside agency action…”
Julie K. Burton v. Hilltop Care Ctr. & Iowa Long Term Care Risk Mgmt. Ass'n, 813 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2012). · cites it 63× “Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of agency decision making.”
Jackson Cnty. Pub. Hosp. v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 280 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 1979). · cites it 74× “11(5)-(11) and that of sections 17A.19 and .20. It is, however, the appeal deadline which is most clearly of critical importance in this case because the hospital's petition for judicial review was filed on November 22, 1976, the twenty-sixth day after the PERB decision was…”
Terry Christiansen v. Iowa Bd. of Educ. Examiners, 831 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2013). · cites it 62× “Specifically, the majority concluded “Cooper did not appeal from a final agency decision as required by section 17A.19” because the employer’s pending application for rehearing rendered the agency’s decision “provisional or conditional until the application [was] ruled upon.”
Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 784 N.W.2d 8 (Iowa 2010). · cites it 42× “See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)( c ). The ICRC argues subsection ( l ) applies because it has been vested with the authority to interpret the Act, and, as a result, we must defer to the agency's interpretation and may only reverse if the interpretation is "irrational, illogical, or…”
Sondra Irving v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 883 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2016). · cites it 47× “Iowa Utilities Board: Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of an agency ruling.”
Nextera Energy Resources LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30 (Iowa 2012). · cites it 49× “§ 17A.19 (10)(f)(l). When reviewing a finding of fact for substantial evidence, we adjudicate the finding “in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that detracts from that finding .”
Tom Brakke & Rhonda Brakke D/B/A/ Pine Ridge Hunting Lodge, & McBra, Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Nat. Resources & Iowa Nat. Resource Comm'n, 897 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 2017). · cites it 29× “The court also held that the DNR’s actions were not a taking because the invasion to the Brakkes’ property was temporary, both specifically as a taking per se and also as a taking involving the Penn Central 2 factors.”
Jeremie J. Cooksey v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., 831 N.W.2d 94 (Iowa 2013). · cites it 80× “Under these unique circumstances, we held the statutory prerequisites for judicial review of Iowa Code section 17A.19 were not met. Id. at 459 .”
Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 199 v. State of Iowa, Iowa Bd. of Regents, 928 N.W.2d 69 (Iowa 2019). · cites it 86× “” But that reading is foreclosed by a neighboring provision of section 17A.19. Section 17A.19(8)(b) instructs that “[t]he validity of agency action must be determined in accordance with the standards of review provided in this section, as applied to the agency action at the time…”
Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Comm'n & Jermaine Stapleton, 895 N.W.2d 446 (Iowa 2017). · cites it 30× “§ 17A.19(/)(10)(1). We conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the DHRC’s determination that Simon Seeding regularly employed four or more individuals during the landscaping season in 2012.”
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(1) — 128 cases
Cont'l Tel. Co. v. Colton, 348 N.W.2d 623 (Iowa 1984).
Terry Christiansen v. Iowa Bd. of Educ. Examiners, 831 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2013). “Specifically, the majority concluded “Cooper did not appeal from a final agency decision as required by section 17A.19” because the employer’s pending application for rehearing rendered the agency’s decision “provisional or conditional until the application [was] ruled upon.”
Salsbury Labs. v. Iowa Dep't of Env't Quality, 276 N.W.2d 830 (Iowa 1979).
Polk Cnty. Iowa v. Iowa State Appeal Bd., 330 N.W.2d 267 (Iowa 1983).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(1)(Z) — 1 case
Thoms v. Iowa Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys., 715 N.W.2d 7 (Iowa 2006).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(1)(a) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(1)(b)(2) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(1)(f)(1) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(1)(f)(3) — 2 cases
Shrum v. Boldt Grp., Inc. (Iowa Ct. App. 2023).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(1)(l) — 2 cases
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10) — 323 cases
Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 784 N.W.2d 8 (Iowa 2010). “See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)( c ). The ICRC argues subsection ( l ) applies because it has been vested with the authority to interpret the Act, and, as a result, we must defer to the agency's interpretation and may only reverse if the interpretation is "irrational, illogical, or…”
Julie K. Burton v. Hilltop Care Ctr. & Iowa Long Term Care Risk Mgmt. Ass'n, 813 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2012). “Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of agency decision making.”
Sondra Irving v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 883 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2016). “Iowa Utilities Board: Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of an agency ruling.”
Tom Brakke & Rhonda Brakke D/B/A/ Pine Ridge Hunting Lodge, & McBra, Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Nat. Resources & Iowa Nat. Resource Comm'n, 897 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 2017). “The court also held that the DNR’s actions were not a taking because the invasion to the Brakkes’ property was temporary, both specifically as a taking per se and also as a taking involving the Penn Central 2 factors.”
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(1) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(5) — 2 cases
Sondra Irving v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 883 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2016). “Iowa Utilities Board: Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of an agency ruling.”
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(6) — 6 cases
Stone Container Corp. v. Castle, 657 N.W.2d 485 (Iowa 2003).
City of Des Moines v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 722 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 2006).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(A) — 2 cases
Finch v. Schneider Specialized Carriers, Inc., 700 N.W.2d 328 (Iowa 2005).
Zieckler v. Ampride, 743 N.W.2d 530 (Iowa 2007).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(J) — 2 cases
Doe v. Iowa Bd. of Med. Examiners, 733 N.W.2d 705 (Iowa 2007).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(Z) — 28 cases
Evercom Sys., Inc. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 805 N.W.2d 758 (Iowa 2011).
Tom Brakke & Rhonda Brakke D/B/A/ Pine Ridge Hunting Lodge, & McBra, Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Nat. Resources & Iowa Nat. Resource Comm'n, 897 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 2017). “The court also held that the DNR’s actions were not a taking because the invasion to the Brakkes’ property was temporary, both specifically as a taking per se and also as a taking involving the Penn Central 2 factors.”
Doe v. Iowa Dep't of Human Servs., 786 N.W.2d 853 (Iowa 2010).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(a) — 65 cases
Tom Brakke & Rhonda Brakke D/B/A/ Pine Ridge Hunting Lodge, & McBra, Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Nat. Resources & Iowa Nat. Resource Comm'n, 897 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 2017). “The court also held that the DNR’s actions were not a taking because the invasion to the Brakkes’ property was temporary, both specifically as a taking per se and also as a taking involving the Penn Central 2 factors.”
Julie K. Burton v. Hilltop Care Ctr. & Iowa Long Term Care Risk Mgmt. Ass'n, 813 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2012). “Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of agency decision making.”
Kelly Brewer-Strong v. HNI Corp., 913 N.W.2d 235 (Iowa 2018).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(b) — 22 cases
Sondra Irving v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 883 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2016). “Iowa Utilities Board: Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of an agency ruling.”
Brewbaker v. State Bd. of Regents, 843 N.W.2d 466 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013).
Gary Pettit v. Iowa Dep't of Corr., 891 N.W.2d 189 (Iowa 2017).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(c) — 221 cases
Julie K. Burton v. Hilltop Care Ctr. & Iowa Long Term Care Risk Mgmt. Ass'n, 813 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2012). “Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of agency decision making.”
Nextera Energy Resources LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30 (Iowa 2012). “§ 17A.19 (10)(f)(l). When reviewing a finding of fact for substantial evidence, we adjudicate the finding “in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that detracts from that finding .”
Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 784 N.W.2d 8 (Iowa 2010). “See Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)( c ). The ICRC argues subsection ( l ) applies because it has been vested with the authority to interpret the Act, and, as a result, we must defer to the agency's interpretation and may only reverse if the interpretation is "irrational, illogical, or…”
Locate.Plus.Com, Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 650 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 2002).
Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Comm'n & Jermaine Stapleton, 895 N.W.2d 446 (Iowa 2017). “§ 17A.19(/)(10)(1). We conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the DHRC’s determination that Simon Seeding regularly employed four or more individuals during the landscaping season in 2012.”
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(d) — 2 cases
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(e) — 15 cases
Iowa Farm Bureau Fed'n, Iowa Renewable Fuels Ass'n, & Iowa Water Env't Ass'n, 850 N.W.2d 403 (Iowa 2014). “” Consequently, the fact that the IAPA permits direct review of administrative action, see Iowa Code § 17A.19, is immaterial. The point of our holding today is that Farm Bureau did not fit its challenge within the narrow parameters that permit a court to set aside agency action…”
Doe v. Iowa Dep't of Human Servs., 786 N.W.2d 853 (Iowa 2010).
Nextera Energy Resources LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30 (Iowa 2012). “§ 17A.19 (10)(f)(l). When reviewing a finding of fact for substantial evidence, we adjudicate the finding “in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that detracts from that finding .”
Jacobson Transp. Co. v. Harris, 778 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2010).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f) — 216 cases
Julie K. Burton v. Hilltop Care Ctr. & Iowa Long Term Care Risk Mgmt. Ass'n, 813 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2012). “Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of agency decision making.”
Sondra Irving v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 883 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2016). “Iowa Utilities Board: Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of an agency ruling.”
Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Comm'n & Jermaine Stapleton, 895 N.W.2d 446 (Iowa 2017). “§ 17A.19(/)(10)(1). We conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the DHRC’s determination that Simon Seeding regularly employed four or more individuals during the landscaping season in 2012.”
Mycogen Seeds v. Sands, 686 N.W.2d 457 (Iowa 2004).
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Caselman, 657 N.W.2d 493 (Iowa 2003).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f)(1) — 155 cases
Keystone Nursing Care Ctr. v. Craddock, 705 N.W.2d 299 (Iowa 2005).
IBP, Inc. v. Burress, 779 N.W.2d 210 (Iowa 2010).
Nextera Energy Resources LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30 (Iowa 2012). “§ 17A.19 (10)(f)(l). When reviewing a finding of fact for substantial evidence, we adjudicate the finding “in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that detracts from that finding .”
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f)(3) — 50 cases
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Caselman, 657 N.W.2d 493 (Iowa 2003).
Tim Neal v. Annett Holdings, Inc., 814 N.W.2d 512 (Iowa 2012).
Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Comm'n & Jermaine Stapleton, 895 N.W.2d 446 (Iowa 2017). “§ 17A.19(/)(10)(1). We conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the DHRC’s determination that Simon Seeding regularly employed four or more individuals during the landscaping season in 2012.”
Mycogen Seeds v. Sands, 686 N.W.2d 457 (Iowa 2004).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f)(a) — 2 cases
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f)(l) — 15 cases
Arndt v. City of Le Claire, 728 N.W.2d 389 (Iowa 2007).
Larson Mfg. Co. v. Thorson, 763 N.W.2d 842 (Iowa 2009).
IBP, Inc. v. Harpole, 621 N.W.2d 410 (Iowa 2001).
Lange v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue, 710 N.W.2d 242 (Iowa 2006).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(fc) — 2 cases
Finch v. Schneider Specialized Carriers, Inc., 700 N.W.2d 328 (Iowa 2005).
Zieckler v. Ampride, 743 N.W.2d 530 (Iowa 2007).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(fe) — 2 cases
Off. of Consum. Advocate v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 770 N.W.2d 334 (Iowa 2009).
Finch v. Schneider Specialized Carriers, Inc., 700 N.W.2d 328 (Iowa 2005).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(fr) — 1 case
Sondra Irving v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 883 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2016). “Iowa Utilities Board: Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of an agency ruling.”
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(g) — 3 cases
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(h) — 23 cases
Off. of Consum. Advocate v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 770 N.W.2d 334 (Iowa 2009).
Swift Pork Co. v. Emp. Appeal Bd. (Iowa Ct. App. 2020).
Champion v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd. (Iowa Ct. App. 2023).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(i) — 36 cases
Thoms v. Iowa Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys., 715 N.W.2d 7 (Iowa 2006).
Meyer v. IBP, Inc., 710 N.W.2d 213 (Iowa 2006).
Nextera Energy Resources LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30 (Iowa 2012). “§ 17A.19 (10)(f)(l). When reviewing a finding of fact for substantial evidence, we adjudicate the finding “in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that detracts from that finding .”
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(j) — 4 cases
John Doe v. Iowa Bd. of Med. (Iowa Ct. App. 2023).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(k) — 5 cases
Amjad Butt, M.D. v. Iowa Bd. of Med. (Iowa Ct. App. 2015).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(l) — 79 cases
Tom Brakke & Rhonda Brakke D/B/A/ Pine Ridge Hunting Lodge, & McBra, Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Nat. Resources & Iowa Nat. Resource Comm'n, 897 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 2017). “The court also held that the DNR’s actions were not a taking because the invasion to the Brakkes’ property was temporary, both specifically as a taking per se and also as a taking involving the Penn Central 2 factors.”
Nextera Energy Resources LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30 (Iowa 2012). “§ 17A.19 (10)(f)(l). When reviewing a finding of fact for substantial evidence, we adjudicate the finding “in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that detracts from that finding .”
Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 199 v. State of Iowa, Iowa Bd. of Regents, 928 N.W.2d 69 (Iowa 2019). “” But that reading is foreclosed by a neighboring provision of section 17A.19. Section 17A.19(8)(b) instructs that “[t]he validity of agency action must be determined in accordance with the standards of review provided in this section, as applied to the agency action at the time…”
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(m) — 97 cases
Julie K. Burton v. Hilltop Care Ctr. & Iowa Long Term Care Risk Mgmt. Ass'n, 813 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2012). “Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of agency decision making.”
Kelly Brewer-Strong v. HNI Corp., 913 N.W.2d 235 (Iowa 2018).
Mycogen Seeds v. Sands, 686 N.W.2d 457 (Iowa 2004).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(n) — 37 cases
Keystone Nursing Care Ctr. v. Craddock, 705 N.W.2d 299 (Iowa 2005).
Brewbaker v. State Bd. of Regents, 843 N.W.2d 466 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013).
City of Davenport v. Newcomb, 820 N.W.2d 882 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(o) — 2 cases
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(to) — 3 cases
Jacobson Transp. Co. v. Harris, 778 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2010).
Midwest Ambulance Serv. v. Ruud, 754 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2008).
AOL LLC v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue, 771 N.W.2d 404 (Iowa 2009).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(w) — 4 cases
Dykstra v. Iowa Dist. Court for Jones Cnty., 783 N.W.2d 473 (Iowa 2010).
Marovec v. Pmx Indus., 693 N.W.2d 779 (Iowa 2005).
Boehme v. Fareway Stores, Inc., 762 N.W.2d 142 (Iowa 2009).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(Í) — 1 case
Xenia Rural Water Dist. v. Vegors, 786 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2010).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(11) — 16 cases
Marovec v. Pmx Indus., 693 N.W.2d 779 (Iowa 2005).
City of Marion v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue & Fin., 643 N.W.2d 205 (Iowa 2002).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(11)(5) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(11)(6) — 6 cases
Harrison v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 659 N.W.2d 581 (Iowa 2003).
Drake Univ. v. Davis, 769 N.W.2d 176 (Iowa 2009).
Iowa Land Title Ass'n v. Iowa Fin. Auth., 771 N.W.2d 399 (Iowa 2009).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(11)(a) — 2 cases
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(11)(b) — 17 cases
Nextera Energy Resources LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30 (Iowa 2012). “§ 17A.19 (10)(f)(l). When reviewing a finding of fact for substantial evidence, we adjudicate the finding “in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that detracts from that finding .”
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(11)(c) — 19 cases
Tom Brakke & Rhonda Brakke D/B/A/ Pine Ridge Hunting Lodge, & McBra, Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Nat. Resources & Iowa Nat. Resource Comm'n, 897 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 2017). “The court also held that the DNR’s actions were not a taking because the invasion to the Brakkes’ property was temporary, both specifically as a taking per se and also as a taking involving the Penn Central 2 factors.”
Thoms v. Iowa Pub. Employees' Ret. Sys., 715 N.W.2d 7 (Iowa 2006).
Franich v. Real Est. Comm'n of the State, 681 N.W.2d 620 (Iowa 2004).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(2) — 61 cases
Neumeister v. City Dev. Bd., 291 N.W.2d 11 (Iowa 1980).
Brown v. John Deere Waterloo Tractor Works, 423 N.W.2d 193 (Iowa 1988).
Anderson v. W. Hodgeman & Sons, Inc., 524 N.W.2d 418 (Iowa 1994).
Record v. Iowa Merit Emp. Dep't, 285 N.W.2d 169 (Iowa 1979).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(3) — 47 cases
Terry Christiansen v. Iowa Bd. of Educ. Examiners, 831 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2013). “Specifically, the majority concluded “Cooper did not appeal from a final agency decision as required by section 17A.19” because the employer’s pending application for rehearing rendered the agency’s decision “provisional or conditional until the application [was] ruled upon.”
Cooper v. Kirkwood Cmty. Coll., 782 N.W.2d 160 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010).
State of Iowa v. Deshaun Marvin Lamar Williams, 910 N.W.2d 586 (Iowa 2018).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(4) — 28 cases
Jeremie J. Cooksey v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., 831 N.W.2d 94 (Iowa 2013). “Under these unique circumstances, we held the statutory prerequisites for judicial review of Iowa Code section 17A.19 were not met. Id. at 459 .”
Doerfer Div. of CCA v. Nicol, 359 N.W.2d 428 (Iowa 1984).
Frost v. S. S. Kresge Co., 299 N.W.2d 646 (Iowa 1980).
Brown v. John Deere Waterloo Tractor Works, 423 N.W.2d 193 (Iowa 1988).
Second Injury Fund of Iowa v. Klebs, 539 N.W.2d 178 (Iowa 1995).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(4)(a) — 2 cases
Doerfer Div. of CCA v. Nicol, 359 N.W.2d 428 (Iowa 1984).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(4)(c) — 2 cases
Iowa Dep't of Transp. v. Iowa Dist. Court, 534 N.W.2d 457 (Iowa 1995).
Dot v. Dist. Ct. for Bremer Cnty., 534 N.W.2d 457 (Iowa 1995).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(4)(d) — 3 cases
Linn Co-Operative Oil Co. v. Quigley, 305 N.W.2d 729 (Iowa 1981).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(4)(g) — 1 case
Hensley v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 336 N.W.2d 448 (Iowa 1983).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(5) — 25 cases
Grinnell Coll. v. Osborn, 751 N.W.2d 396 (Iowa 2008).
Pub. Emp. Relations Bd. v. Stohr, 279 N.W.2d 286 (Iowa 1979).
Glowacki v. State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 501 N.W.2d 539 (Iowa 1993).
Briar Cliff Coll. v. Campolo, 360 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 1984).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(5)(6) — 1 case
Zeigler v. Fleetguard, Inc., 675 N.W.2d 581 (Iowa 2004).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(5)(a) — 3 cases
Hormel Foods Corp. v. Tamayo-Perez (Iowa Ct. App. 2023).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(5)(c) — 7 cases
Zeigler v. Fleetguard, Inc., 675 N.W.2d 581 (Iowa 2004).
Snap-On Tools Corp. v. Schadendorf, 757 N.W.2d 339 (Iowa 2008).
Hormel Foods Corp. v. Tamayo-Perez (Iowa Ct. App. 2023).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(5)(c)(1) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(5)(c)(2) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(6) — 10 cases
Stone Container Corp. v. Castle, 657 N.W.2d 485 (Iowa 2003).
Johnston v. Iowa Real Est. Comm'n, 344 N.W.2d 236 (Iowa 1984).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(7) — 96 cases
Sondra Irving v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 883 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2016). “Iowa Utilities Board: Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of an agency ruling.”
Interstate Power Co. v. Iowa State Com. Comm'n, 463 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 1990).
Reiter v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 327 N.W.2d 763 (Iowa Ct. App. 1982).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8) — 410 cases
Jackson Cnty. Pub. Hosp. v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 280 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 1979). “11(5)-(11) and that of sections 17A.19 and .20. It is, however, the appeal deadline which is most clearly of critical importance in this case because the hospital's petition for judicial review was filed on November 22, 1976, the twenty-sixth day after the PERB decision was…”
Linn Co-Operative Oil Co. v. Quigley, 305 N.W.2d 729 (Iowa 1981).
Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 199 v. State of Iowa, Iowa Bd. of Regents, 928 N.W.2d 69 (Iowa 2019). “” But that reading is foreclosed by a neighboring provision of section 17A.19. Section 17A.19(8)(b) instructs that “[t]he validity of agency action must be determined in accordance with the standards of review provided in this section, as applied to the agency action at the time…”
Iowa Bankers Ass'n v. Iowa Credit Union Dep't, 335 N.W.2d 439 (Iowa 1983).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(5) — 2 cases
Marovec v. Pmx Indus., 693 N.W.2d 779 (Iowa 2005).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(6) — 3 cases
Locate.Plus.Com, Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 650 N.W.2d 609 (Iowa 2002).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(V) — 1 case
Remer v. Bd. of Med. Examiners of the State, 576 N.W.2d 598 (Iowa 1998).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(a) — 74 cases
Sondra Irving v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 883 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2016). “Iowa Utilities Board: Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of an agency ruling.”
Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Comm'n & Jermaine Stapleton, 895 N.W.2d 446 (Iowa 2017). “§ 17A.19(/)(10)(1). We conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the DHRC’s determination that Simon Seeding regularly employed four or more individuals during the landscaping season in 2012.”
Simonson v. Iowa State Univ., 603 N.W.2d 557 (Iowa 1999).
Winnebago Indus., Inc. v. Haverly, 727 N.W.2d 567 (Iowa 2006).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(a)(b)(c) — 2 cases
Woods v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 315 N.W.2d 838 (Iowa Ct. App. 1981).
Gipson v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 315 N.W.2d 834 (Iowa Ct. App. 1981).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(b) — 25 cases
Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 199 v. State of Iowa, Iowa Bd. of Regents, 928 N.W.2d 69 (Iowa 2019). “” But that reading is foreclosed by a neighboring provision of section 17A.19. Section 17A.19(8)(b) instructs that “[t]he validity of agency action must be determined in accordance with the standards of review provided in this section, as applied to the agency action at the time…”
Jackson Cnty. Pub. Hosp. v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 280 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 1979). “11(5)-(11) and that of sections 17A.19 and .20. It is, however, the appeal deadline which is most clearly of critical importance in this case because the hospital's petition for judicial review was filed on November 22, 1976, the twenty-sixth day after the PERB decision was…”
Hiserote Homes, Inc. v. Riedemann, 277 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 1979).
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Caselman, 657 N.W.2d 493 (Iowa 2003).
Sommers v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 337 N.W.2d 470 (Iowa 1983).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(c) — 3 cases
Wedergren v. Bd. of Directors, 307 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 1981).
Brumley v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 292 N.W.2d 126 (Iowa 1980).
Crestview Manor v. Iowa Dep't of Soc. Servs., 287 N.W.2d 890 (Iowa Ct. App. 1979).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(d) — 4 cases
Iowa Farm Bureau Fed'n, Iowa Renewable Fuels Ass'n, & Iowa Water Env't Ass'n, 850 N.W.2d 403 (Iowa 2014). “” Consequently, the fact that the IAPA permits direct review of administrative action, see Iowa Code § 17A.19, is immaterial. The point of our holding today is that Farm Bureau did not fit its challenge within the narrow parameters that permit a court to set aside agency action…”
Torner by Torner v. State, 399 N.W.2d 381 (Iowa 1987).
Torner ex rel. Torner v. Iowa, 399 N.W.2d 381 (Iowa 1987).
Bradley v. Iowa Dep't of Pers., 596 N.W.2d 526 (Iowa 1999).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(e) — 49 cases
Iowa Farm Bureau Fed'n, Iowa Renewable Fuels Ass'n, & Iowa Water Env't Ass'n, 850 N.W.2d 403 (Iowa 2014). “” Consequently, the fact that the IAPA permits direct review of administrative action, see Iowa Code § 17A.19, is immaterial. The point of our holding today is that Farm Bureau did not fit its challenge within the narrow parameters that permit a court to set aside agency action…”
Griffin Pipe Prods. Co. v. Guarino, 663 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2003).
Freeland v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 492 N.W.2d 193 (Iowa 1992).
Stroup v. Reno, 530 N.W.2d 441 (Iowa 1995).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(f) — 186 cases
Jackson Cnty. Pub. Hosp. v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 280 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 1979). “11(5)-(11) and that of sections 17A.19 and .20. It is, however, the appeal deadline which is most clearly of critical importance in this case because the hospital's petition for judicial review was filed on November 22, 1976, the twenty-sixth day after the PERB decision was…”
City of Davenport v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 264 N.W.2d 307 (Iowa 1978).
Estabrook v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 283 N.W.2d 306 (Iowa 1979).
Woodbury Cnty. v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 335 N.W.2d 161 (Iowa 1983).
King v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 334 N.W.2d 598 (Iowa 1983).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(g) — 44 cases
IBP, Inc. v. Al-Gharib, 604 N.W.2d 621 (Iowa 2000).
Estabrook v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 283 N.W.2d 306 (Iowa 1979).
Teleconnect Co. v. Iowa State Com. Comm'n, 404 N.W.2d 158 (Iowa 1987).
Terwilliger v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 529 N.W.2d 267 (Iowa 1995).
Soo Line R.R. v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 521 N.W.2d 685 (Iowa 1994).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(h) — 1 case
East Buchanan Tel. Coop. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 738 N.W.2d 636 (Iowa 2007).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(n) — 1 case
Sondra Irving v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 883 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2016). “Iowa Utilities Board: Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) governs judicial review of an agency ruling.”
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(u) — 1 case
Gilbert v. USF Holland, Inc., 637 N.W.2d 194 (Iowa 2001).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8Xa) — 1 case
Temple v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 285 N.W.2d 157 (Iowa 1979).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(8Xf) — 1 case
Jackson Cnty. Pub. Hosp. v. Pub. Emp. Relations Bd., 280 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 1979). “11(5)-(11) and that of sections 17A.19 and .20. It is, however, the appeal deadline which is most clearly of critical importance in this case because the hospital's petition for judicial review was filed on November 22, 1976, the twenty-sixth day after the PERB decision was…”
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(9) — 3 cases
Marek v. Johnson (Iowa Ct. App. 2020).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(U)(6) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(e) — 1 case
Berger v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 679 N.W.2d 636 (Iowa 2004).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(f)(1) — 2 cases
Shrum v. Boldt Grp., Inc. (Iowa Ct. App. 2023).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(f)(10)(1) — 3 cases
Simon Seeding & Sod, Inc. v. Dubuque Human Rights Comm'n & Jermaine Stapleton, 895 N.W.2d 446 (Iowa 2017). “§ 17A.19(/)(10)(1). We conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the DHRC’s determination that Simon Seeding regularly employed four or more individuals during the landscaping season in 2012.”
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(g) — 1 case
Burgmaier v. Iowa Dep't of Human Servs., 570 N.W.2d 109 (Iowa 1997).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(ll) — 1 case
Lange v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue, 710 N.W.2d 242 (Iowa 2006).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(ll)(a) — 5 cases
City of Marion v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue & Fin., 643 N.W.2d 205 (Iowa 2002).
Robinson v. State, 687 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 2004).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(ll)(c) — 13 cases
Mycogen Seeds v. Sands, 686 N.W.2d 457 (Iowa 2004).
Marovec v. Pmx Indus., 693 N.W.2d 779 (Iowa 2005).
City of Marion v. Iowa Dep't of Revenue & Fin., 643 N.W.2d 205 (Iowa 2002).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(ll)(e) — 1 case
Marovec v. Pmx Indus., 693 N.W.2d 779 (Iowa 2005).
— Iowa Code § 17A.19(ll)(h) — 1 case
Nextera Energy Resources LLC v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 815 N.W.2d 30 (Iowa 2012). “§ 17A.19 (10)(f)(l). When reviewing a finding of fact for substantial evidence, we adjudicate the finding “in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that detracts from that finding .”
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.