Court Opinion

ID: 9531788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:14:30.931957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:35.021279
License: Public Domain

CARTER, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the court’s conclusions that the need to maintain depositor confidence militates against a preseizure hearing concerning the right of the superintendent to “take over the management” of the bank. Clearly, however, the federal due process clause mandates that the bank be granted an opportunity for a postseizure hearing at which to challenge the legality of the superintendent’s actions.
The opinion of the court suggests the requirements of the due process clause are satisfied by the bank’s right to seek judicial review of agency action under Iowa Code section 17A.19 (1987). The opinion assumes that at that stage of the proceedings an adequate postdeprivation hearing would be available in the district court. Assuming that the right to that type of hearing would satisfy constitutional due process, it does not, I submit, satisfy the requirements of Iowa Code section 17A.l2(l). Under that statute, if a constitutional right to a hearing exists, this triggers a statutory right to a contested case hearing before the agency. See Iowa Code § 17A.2(2). The bank was denied that right in the present case.
This issue involves more than whether the hearing is to be held before the agency or before a court. The scope of the hearing is also involved. At a contested case hearing before the agency under section 17A.12(1), the bank would have the right to offer evidence relevant to all material issues in the controversy. In contrast, the right to present evidence on judicial review of “other agency action” under section 17A.19 is extremely narrow.1 As a result of the differences in the scope of these hearings, substantial procedural rights of the bank have been denied.

. We have held that additional evidence offered in the district court in a review of "other agency action,” where no contested case hearing has been held before the agency, is for the limited purposes of "highlighting what actually occurred in the agency so as to facilitate the court’s search for errors of law or unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious action.” Sheet Metal Contractors of Iowa v. Commissioner of Ins., 427 N.W.2d 859, 867 n. 3 (Iowa 1988): Krause v. State, 426 N.W.2d 161, 165 n. 1 (Iowa 1988).