The rights of persons under this chapter may be exercised under any of the following circumstances:
1. In person, at any time during the customary office hours of the lawful custodian of the records. However, if the lawful custodian does not have customary office hours of at least thirty hours per week, such right may be exercised at any time from 9:00 a.m. to noon and from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, unless the person exercising such right and the lawful custodian agree on a different time.
2. In writing, by telephone, or by electronic means. The lawful custodian of the records shall post information for making such requests in a manner reasonably calculated to apprise the public of that information. [C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §68A.4] 84 Acts, ch 1185, §3 C85, §22.4 2020 Acts, ch 1103, §33, 51 Referred to in §8A.341 \n
Notes of Decisions
Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444 (Iowa 2013).
· cites it 2× “4 of the Open Records Act, by stating that “[t]he rights of persons under this chapter may be exercised at any time during the customary office hours of the lawful custodian of the records,” suggests that our legislature contemplated immediate access to public records. Based on…”
Wings v. Dunlap, 527 N.W.2d 407 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 6× “The district court-found the delay in providing the records during the period from March 28 through April 22, 1991, was not justified pursuant to section 22.”
Jeremy Chedester & Chedester Props., LLC v. City of Newton, Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 31× “The court granted the City summary judgment because the court concluded as a matter of law that the April 2024 email from Chedester’s attorney to the city attorney was not “a proper request for records from the City under Iowa Code § 22.4 .” So we start with the statute’s text.”
Titan Wheel Corp. of Iowa v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 291 F. Supp. 2d 899 (S.D. Iowa 2003).
“R, § 22.4(c)(6). 14 C. Did the exclusion of this evidence violate Titan’s right to due process? Titan asserts its right to due process was violated because the ALJ excluded the relevant evidence regarding comparative penalty assessments.”
— Iowa Code § 22.4(1) — 1 case
Jeremy Chedester & Chedester Props., LLC v. City of Newton, Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2026).
“The court granted the City summary judgment because the court concluded as a matter of law that the April 2024 email from Chedester’s attorney to the city attorney was not “a proper request for records from the City under Iowa Code § 22.4 .” So we start with the statute’s text.”
— Iowa Code § 22.4(2) — 1 case
Jeremy Chedester & Chedester Props., LLC v. City of Newton, Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2026).
“The court granted the City summary judgment because the court concluded as a matter of law that the April 2024 email from Chedester’s attorney to the city attorney was not “a proper request for records from the City under Iowa Code § 22.4 .” So we start with the statute’s text.”
— Iowa Code § 22.4(c)(6) — 1 case
Titan Wheel Corp. of Iowa v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 291 F. Supp. 2d 899 (S.D. Iowa 2003).
“R, § 22.4(c)(6). 14 C. Did the exclusion of this evidence violate Titan’s right to due process? Titan asserts its right to due process was violated because the ALJ excluded the relevant evidence regarding comparative penalty assessments.”
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.