Court Opinion

ID: 9657902
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:40:51.506719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:49.274015
License: Public Domain

BECKER, Justice
(dissenting)
I respectfully dissent.
The majority recognizes the purpose of newly enacted chapter 98, Acts of the 62nd General Assembly. But by refusal to grant injunctive relief the decision robs the statute of most of its efficacy.
I agree that failure to comply with the act does not render the school board’s action void. It does make the action voidable and subject to being set aside by prompt attack as provided by statute. Otherwise the provision for actions by mandamus and injunction have no meaning.
We cannot insist the action be by direct appeal from the action of the governmental agency. First, the evil under attack is withholding public information. Therefore, the interested parties are without knowledge of the illegal action for a period of time that will vary with circumstances and the time for such type appeal may be gone. Second, no specific avenue of direct appeal is provided. Third, and contrariwise, two avenues of independent action are provided; i. e., mandamus and injunction, which shall be in addition to other remedies.
I cannot agree that our rules relating to injunctive relief are so narrow as to make the remedy sought ineffective in this situation. The statement, “Rights already lost and wrongs already committed are not subject to injunctive relief, especially when *842there is no showing the wrong will he repeated”, is not all of the applicable Iowa law on the subject. In Falcon v. Boyer, 157 Iowa 745, 752, 142 N.W. 427, 430, we said: “It is next contended that the decree of the court is wrong in that it contained a mandatory order on the defendant. Upon this point we have to say that, while the office of an injunction primarily is to restrain, and not to compel, the performance of an act, yet, if it be necessary in order to make the restraining order effectual, the party against whom it is issued may be required to perform some affirmative act which will make effectual the main and controlling purpose of the order. It can not be maintained that, because an injunction primarily is to restrain, and not to compel, the performance of an act, it can not be used, when the effect of yielding obedience thereto requires the performance of some affirmative act. That is, the court may grant an injunction, the essential nature of which is to restrain, although, in yielding obedience to the restraint, the party may be required to perform some affirmative act. Otherwise often the injunction would be ineffectual. In support of this see Allen v. Stowell, 145 Cal. 666, 79 Pac. 371, 68 L.R.A. 223, 104 Am.St.Rep. 80; Troe v. Larson, 84 Iowa 649, 51 N.W. 179, 35 Am.St.Rep. 336. In this last case it is said: ‘A mandatory order is not to correct a wrong of the past, in the sense of redress for the injury already sustained, but to prevent further injury. * *
More recently in Iowa Natural Resources Council v. Van Zee, (1968), Iowa, 158 N.W.2d 111, 115, we again recognized mandatory injunctions: “The granting of injunctive relief in most cases is limited to the restraining of actual or threatened acts injurious to the complainant’s rights and is not to compel the undoing of an injury. Hanna v. Nowell, (Mo.App.), 330 S.W.2d 595; 28 Am.Jur., Injunctions, §§ 3, 17. Such injunctions are commonly called prohibitory injunctions and have the effect of preserving the status quo and operate to restrain the commission or continuance of an act. Schubach v. McDonald, 179 Mo. 163, 78 S.W. 1020, 65 L.R.A. 136, 101 Am.St.Rep. 452, writ of error dismissed in Schubach v. Hough, 196 U.S. 644, 25 S.Ct. 797, 49 L.Ed. 632. Apparently this was the type of injunction visualized in paragraph 4 of this section.
“However, a court of equity can and in a proper case will award mandatory in-junctive relief which will compel some affirmative act, thus going beyond mere restraint. Falcon v. Boyer, 157 Iowa 745, 142 N.W. 427. Although courts look upon the latter with disfavor and such injunctions are granted with caution in cases of great necessity, they may be proper. Black v. Jackson, 177 U.S. 349, 20 S.Ct. 648, 44 L.Ed. 801; Lyle v. City of Chicago, 357 Ill. 41, 191 N.E. 255 [93 A.L.R. 1492] 28 Am.Jur., Injunctions, § 20. This type of injunction has reasonable application under paragraph 3 of this section.”
This case is important because it sets the tone of the enforcement of a new statute which articulates an important legislative policy. The majority says the statute entitled Governmental Meetings Open To The Public means what it says. It then holds that because the meeting is over and done with the courts are powerless to (or will not) interfere, even though the legislature plainly indicated the machinery for interference. This will always be the case. By the very nature of the problem relief cannot be sought until after the meeting has been held.
The majority approach is wrong because it allows the governmental agency to act in plain violation of the law without fear of effective restraint. Under this interpretation the legislature has created the right to be informed but we reject the remedy. The criminal sanctions are not the only restraint provided in the statute.
I would hold the action of the school board voidable. The attack on the action taken at the illegal meeting was timely made. Such action should therefore be *843voided and set aside. The board has the right to take further action at a legal meeting. Whether the board elects to take the same action or a different tack is immaterial.
Only by such a holding can we give force and effect to the plain mandate of the legislature.
MASON, J., joins in this dissent.