Iowa Code » Chapter 661 — MANDAMUS
Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 661.9 (2026)

Petition

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

The plaintiff in such action shall state the plaintiff’s claim, and shall also state facts sufficient to constitute a cause for such claim, and shall also set forth that the plaintiff, if a private individual, is personally interested therein, and that the plaintiff sustains and may sustain damage by the nonperformance of such duty, and that performance thereof has been demanded by the plaintiff, and refused or neglected, and shall pray an order of mandamus commanding the defendant to fulfill such duty. [R60, §3762; C73, §3378; C97, §4346; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §12448; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §661.9]

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1952–2021 · leading case: Dobrovolny v. Reinhardt, 173 N.W.2d 837 (Iowa 1970).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dobrovolny v. Reinhardt, 173 N.W.2d 837 (Iowa 1970). · cites it 4× “What was the effect of Monona County Board of Education's failure to comply with section 4? This is determined by all the provisions of chapter 98.”
Charles Gabus Ford, Inc. v. Iowa State High. Comm'n, 224 N.W.2d 639 (Iowa 1974). · cites it 3× “Defendant argues plaintiffs’ action for mandamus must be turned away at the threshold because there was no showing Continental Western, plaintiffs’ assignor, sustained, or might sustain, damages because of defendant’s failure to act, a showing it contends is required by § 661.9,…”
Hurd v. Odgaard, 297 N.W.2d 355 (Iowa 1980). · cites it 2× “One of the vital issues raised is plaintiffs’ right to maintain this mandamus action under section 661.9, The Code, which we set out: The plaintiff in such action shall state his claim, and shall also state facts sufficient to constitute a cause for such claim, and shall also…”
Mapes v. Madison Cnty., 107 N.W.2d 62 (Iowa 1961). · cites it 4× “Defendants appealed, first, for failure to dismiss petition in view of no evidence of demand on the part of plaintiffs as required by section 661.9, 1958 Code of Iowa, and second, for allowance of writ for failure to furnish lateral support.”
Hawbaker v. Iowa State High. Comm'n, 113 N.W.2d 296 (Iowa 1962). · cites it 4× “Section 661.9 is quoted: "Petition. The plaintiff in such action shall state his claim, and shall also state facts sufficient to constitute a cause for such claim, and shall also set forth that the plaintiff, if a private individual, is personally interested therein, and that he…”
Claussen v. Perry, 79 N.W.2d 778 (Iowa 1956). · cites it 2× “” Section 661.9, with which plaintiffs carefully complied, states as follows: “The plaintiff in such action shall state his claim, and shall also state facts sufficient to constitute a cause for such claim, and shall also set forth that the plaintiff, if a private individual, is…”
Haines v. Bd. of Supervisors, 52 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 1952). · cites it 2× “” It is apparent, therefore, that the trial court did pass on this particular question in the ruling it made. It also passed upon other questions raised during the trial.”
Van Buskirk v. Iowa State High. Comm'n, 122 N.W.2d 351 (Iowa 1963). · cites it 4× “” Section 661.9 provides: “Petition. The plaintiff in such action shall state his claim, and shall also state facts sufficient *347 to constitute a cause for such claim, and shall also set forth that the plaintiff, if a prívate individual, is personally interested therein, and…”
Michael Alexander Lajeunesse v. The Iowa Bd. of Med. (Iowa Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “In a pro se filing, Michael Lajeunesse petitioned for writ of mandamus pursuant to Iowa Code section 661.9 (2020).1 In that February 12, 2020 filing, Lajeunesse referenced his “petition for a declaratory order against the [Board] of [M]edicine’s licensee: Dr.”
Haines v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Pottawattamie Cnty., 52 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 1952). · cites it 2× “" It is apparent, therefore, that the trial court did pass on this particular question in the ruling it made.”
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.