1. The district court may grant an injunction restraining the examination, including
copying, of a specific public record or a narrowly drawn class of public records. A hearing
shall be held on a request for injunction upon reasonable notice as determined by the court
to persons requesting access to the record which is the subject of the request for injunction.
It shall be the duty of the lawful custodian and any other person seeking an injunction to
ensure compliance with the notice requirement. Such an injunction may be issued only if
the petition supported by affidavit shows and if the court finds both of the following:
a. That the examination would clearly not be in the public interest.
b. That the examination would substantially and irreparably injure any person or persons.
2. An injunction shall be subject to the rules of civil procedure except that the court in its
discretion may waive bond.
3. In actions brought under this section the district court shall take into account the
policy of this chapter that free and open examination of public records is generally in the
public interest even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to
public officials or others. A court may issue an injunction restraining examination of a public
record or a narrowly drawn class of such records, only if the person seeking the injunction
demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that this section authorizes its issuance. An
injunction restraining the examination of a narrowly drawn class of public records may be
issued only if such an injunction would be justified under this section for every member
within the class of records involved if each of those members were considered separately.
4. Good-faith, reasonable delay by a lawful custodian in permitting the examination and
copying of a government record is not a violation of this chapter if the purpose of the delay
is any of the following:
a. To seek an injunction under this section.
b. To determine whether the lawful custodian is entitled to seek such an injunction or
should seek such an injunction.
c. To determine whether the government record in question is a public record, or
confidential record.
d. To determine whether a confidential record should be available for inspection and
copying to the person requesting the right to do so. A reasonable delay for this purpose shall
not exceed twenty calendar days and ordinarily should not exceed ten business days.
e. Actions for injunctions under this section may be brought by the lawful custodian of
a government record, or by another government body or person who would be aggrieved or
adversely affected by the examination or copying of such a record.
f. The rights and remedies provided by this section are in addition to any rights and
remedies provided by section 17A.19.
[C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §68A.8]
84 Acts, ch 1185, §7
C85, §22.8
Referred to in §23.5, 23.11
\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case:
Iowa Film Prod. Servs. Mississippi Films, Inc. Polynation Pictures, Inc. Field of Screams, LLC Underground Films, Inc. Ticket Out Prods. Tricoast Iowa Prods., LLC Gpx Dev., LLC September Prods. LLC Lucky Mp, LLC & Recess Film Prod., LLC v. Iowa Dep't of Econ. Dev., 818 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa 2012).
City of Riverdale, Iowa v. Allen Diercks, Marie Randol, & Tammie Picton, 806 N.W.2d 643 (Iowa 2011).
· cites it 23× “10(3)(c) requires Riverdale to pay defendants’ reasonable attorney fees because the district court found the City violated the statute by withholding the video and implicitly rejected the City’s defense of a “good-faith, reasonable delay” under section 22.8(4). The district…”
Gabrilson v. Flynn, 554 N.W.2d 267 (Iowa 1996).
· cites it 33× “See Iowa Code § 22.8 (1). In response, Flynn contends that his rule 179(b) motion was effectually a petition for injunctive relief, even though it was not labeled as such.”
Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444 (Iowa 2013).
· cites it 13× “However, Hors-field argues that there is an implicit time limit of twenty days based on the following language in section 22.8: 4. Good-faith, reasonable delay by a lawful custodian in permitting the examination and copying of a government record is not a violation of this…”
Marcus v. Young, 538 N.W.2d 285 (Iowa 1995).
· cites it 16× “Iowa Code § 22.8 (1). The section further provides actions for injunctions may be initiated by the lawful custodian of a government record, another government body, or a person adversely affected by the examination or copying.”
Mark D. Hall v. Broadlawns Med. Ctr., 811 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa 2012).
· cites it 17× “Iowa Code section 22.8 allows for injunctions to prevent disclosure when the court finds both that examination is “clearly” not in the public interest and that examination would “substantially ánd irreparably injure any person or persons.”
DeLaMater v. Marion Civil Serv. Comm'n, 554 N.W.2d 875 (Iowa 1996).
· cites it 4× “See Iowa Code § 22.8 (3) (stating the policy of chapter 22 is free and open examination of public records even though it may cause embarrassment); Celmins, 457 F.”
Johnson v. Univ. of Iowa, 408 F. Supp. 2d 728 (S.D. Iowa 2004).
· cites it 5× “The purpose statement in the policy, § 22.8(a), suggests that all parents are entitled to parental leave: the stated purpose is “[t]o permit parents who have care giving responsibilities to have time off to spend with a child newly added to the family and, to the extent…”
— Iowa Code § 22.8(1) — 2 cases
Gabrilson v. Flynn, 554 N.W.2d 267 (Iowa 1996).
“See Iowa Code § 22.8 (1). In response, Flynn contends that his rule 179(b) motion was effectually a petition for injunctive relief, even though it was not labeled as such.”
— Iowa Code § 22.8(3) — 12 cases
Gabrilson v. Flynn, 554 N.W.2d 267 (Iowa 1996).
“See Iowa Code § 22.8 (1). In response, Flynn contends that his rule 179(b) motion was effectually a petition for injunctive relief, even though it was not labeled as such.”
Mark D. Hall v. Broadlawns Med. Ctr., 811 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa 2012).
“Iowa Code section 22.8 allows for injunctions to prevent disclosure when the court finds both that examination is “clearly” not in the public interest and that examination would “substantially ánd irreparably injure any person or persons.”
— Iowa Code § 22.8(4) — 8 cases
City of Riverdale, Iowa v. Allen Diercks, Marie Randol, & Tammie Picton, 806 N.W.2d 643 (Iowa 2011).
“10(3)(c) requires Riverdale to pay defendants’ reasonable attorney fees because the district court found the City violated the statute by withholding the video and implicitly rejected the City’s defense of a “good-faith, reasonable delay” under section 22.8(4). The district…”
Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444 (Iowa 2013).
“However, Hors-field argues that there is an implicit time limit of twenty days based on the following language in section 22.8: 4. Good-faith, reasonable delay by a lawful custodian in permitting the examination and copying of a government record is not a violation of this…”
Mark D. Hall v. Broadlawns Med. Ctr., 811 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa 2012).
“Iowa Code section 22.8 allows for injunctions to prevent disclosure when the court finds both that examination is “clearly” not in the public interest and that examination would “substantially ánd irreparably injure any person or persons.”
Marcus v. Young, 538 N.W.2d 285 (Iowa 1995).
“Iowa Code § 22.8 (1). The section further provides actions for injunctions may be initiated by the lawful custodian of a government record, another government body, or a person adversely affected by the examination or copying.”
— Iowa Code § 22.8(4)(a) — 1 case
Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444 (Iowa 2013).
“However, Hors-field argues that there is an implicit time limit of twenty days based on the following language in section 22.8: 4. Good-faith, reasonable delay by a lawful custodian in permitting the examination and copying of a government record is not a violation of this…”
— Iowa Code § 22.8(4)(d) — 3 cases
Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444 (Iowa 2013).
“However, Hors-field argues that there is an implicit time limit of twenty days based on the following language in section 22.8: 4. Good-faith, reasonable delay by a lawful custodian in permitting the examination and copying of a government record is not a violation of this…”
— Iowa Code § 22.8(a) — 1 case
Johnson v. Univ. of Iowa, 408 F. Supp. 2d 728 (S.D. Iowa 2004).
“The purpose statement in the policy, § 22.8(a), suggests that all parents are entitled to parental leave: the stated purpose is “[t]o permit parents who have care giving responsibilities to have time off to spend with a child newly added to the family and, to the extent…”
— Iowa Code § 22.8(b)(1)(a) — 1 case
Johnson v. Univ. of Iowa, 408 F. Supp. 2d 728 (S.D. Iowa 2004).
“The purpose statement in the policy, § 22.8(a), suggests that all parents are entitled to parental leave: the stated purpose is “[t]o permit parents who have care giving responsibilities to have time off to spend with a child newly added to the family and, to the extent…”
— Iowa Code § 22.8(b)(1)(b) — 1 case
Johnson v. Univ. of Iowa, 408 F. Supp. 2d 728 (S.D. Iowa 2004).
“The purpose statement in the policy, § 22.8(a), suggests that all parents are entitled to parental leave: the stated purpose is “[t]o permit parents who have care giving responsibilities to have time off to spend with a child newly added to the family and, to the extent…”
— Iowa Code § 22.8(l)(a) — 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.