Iowa Code » Chapter 321 — MOTOR VEHICLES AND LAW OF THE ROAD
Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 321.235 (2026)

Provisions uniform

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

The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities in this state. Unless expressly authorized in this chapter, a local authority shall not enact or enforce any rule or regulation in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. Local authorities may, however, adopt additional traffic regulations which are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter. [C39, §5017.08; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §321.235] 2023 Acts, ch 66, §75

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1962–2020 · leading case: City of Davenport v. Seymour, 755 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Davenport v. Seymour, 755 N.W.2d 533 (Iowa 2008). · cites it 52× “This subsequent language eliminates any basis for field preemption because the legislature has expressly authorized municipalities to enact local ordinances regarding the subject matter—namely, traffic regulations—that are "not inconsistent with" the Code.”
City of Sioux City v. Michael Jon Jacobsma, 862 N.W.2d 335 (Iowa 2015). · cites it 4× “2d at 539 -44 (quoting Iowa Code § 321.235 ). B. Discussion. We agree with the City that Seymour is controlling here, and that as a result, Jacobsma’s preemption claims must fail.”
City of Vinton v. Engledow, 140 N.W.2d 857 (Iowa 1966). · cites it 13× “In view of this history, we must face the following legislative policy pronouncements in §§ 321.235 and 321.236, Code, 1962. "Provisions uniform.”
Goodell v. Humboldt Cnty., 575 N.W.2d 486 (Iowa 1998). · cites it 4× “The court concluded the local law was preempted because the legislature had indicated its desire for uniformity in this area by stating the following in chapter 321, which deals with rules of the road: "`The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable and uniform throughout…”
Bergeson v. Pesch, 117 N.W.2d 431 (Iowa 1962). · cites it 5× “235 provides, “Local authorities may, however, adopt additional traffic regulations which are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter.” And 321.”
Mitchell Cnty. v. Matthew Hoover Zimmerman, 810 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2012). · cites it 2× “III § 38A; Iowa Code § 321.235 ; City of Davenport v.”
Cent. City v. Eddy, 173 N.W.2d 582 (Iowa 1970). · cites it 4× “107 is an invalid enactment of the Town of Central City Iowa, for the reason that said Ordinance purports to make negligent driving a crime and Section 321.235 of the Code of Iowa, 1966, requires that the traffic laws of the State of Iowa and the political subdivisions thereof…”
City of Janesville v. McCartney, 326 N.W.2d 785 (Iowa 1982). · cites it 2× “Iowa Code § 321.235 . Local authorities are nevertheless given considerable authority in traffic matters.”
City Of Davenport Vs. Thomas J. Seymour (Iowa 2008). · cites it 26× “This subsequent language eliminates any basis for field preemption because the legislature has expressly authorized municipalities to enact local ordinances regarding the subject matter—namely, traffic regulations—that are “not inconsistent with” the Code.”
Mark Leonard Milligan v. Ottumwa Police Dep't & City of Otumwa, Iowa (Iowa 2020). · cites it 2× “” In other words, a person who is cited for violating 17 differences in holding that municipal ATE camera tickets were an alternative “system” for enforcing speeding or red light laws and therefore were not preempted by the uniformity requirement in Iowa Code section 321.235.…”
Amended June 30, 2015 City of Sioux City v. Michael Jon Jacobsma (Iowa 2015). · cites it 3× “235 authorized municipalities to “ ‘adopt additional traffic regulations which are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter’ ” and that municipal ordinances imposing civil liability for infractions are not preempted.”
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.