Opinion ID: 2108339
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the District Court Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Review Waddell's Removal from the Board by Brooke?

Text: The district court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, which is the power to hear cases of this type, because Brooke's removal of Waddell was pursuant to his executive function as mayor. Waddell argues, however, that the hearing was quasi-judicial in nature and it affected Waddell's substantial rights. Therefore, he asserts the district court had jurisdiction to review Brooke's and the City's action by writ of certiorari. A writ of certiorari shall only be granted ... where an inferior tribunal, board or officer, exercising judicial functions, is alleged to have exceeded proper jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1401. One test articulated by our court to determine whether a tribunal is exercising a quasi-judicial function is whether the questioned act involves a proceeding in which notice and opportunity to be heard are required; or whether a determination of rights of parties is made which requires the exercise of discretion in finding facts and applying the law thereto. Buechele v. Ray, 219 N.W.2d 679, 681 (Iowa 1974). Another test articulated by our court to determine if certiorari will lie is when an action is brought by an incumbent of an office to review proceedings which he apprehends may be used unlawfully to disturb him in enjoyment of his office. Massey v. City Council of the City of Des Moines, 239 Iowa 527, 533, 31 N.W.2d 875, 879 (1948). The mechanism used by Brooke in the March 20 letter to remove Waddell from the Board relied on Iowa Code sections 372.15 and 414.8. Both sections of the Code require some form of notice and hearing before Waddell's termination by Brooke became final. Iowa Code §§ 372.15, 414.8. The notice and hearing requirements make the proceeding a quasi-judicial function and subject to review by certiorari. Buechele, 219 N.W.2d at 681. Additionally, Waddell is contesting his removal from office. This is clearly reviewable by a certiorari action under our holding in Massey. 239 Iowa at 533, 31 N.W.2d at 879. Therefore, under either test the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear Waddell's certiorari action.