Court Opinion

ID: 9659583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:50:10.469063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:09.617689
License: Public Domain

LeGRAND, Justice
(concurring specially)-
I concur in the result but disagree with the manner in which the majority arrives at its result.
This is a certiorari action to test the legality of the trial court’s denial of Mrs. Pollard’s petition for a change of venue. We have a long and uninterrupted — until now — line of cases establishing the rule that our review in certiorari is not de novo. It is limited to deciding if there is “competent and substantial evidence” to support the findings made. Only questions of law are presented. In the interest of brevity I cite only one of our recent decisions on the point. Harnack v. District Court of Woodbury County, 179 N.W.2d 356, 359 (Iowa 1970). Many others are readily available.
Harnack, too, presented a change of venue issue; and Harnack was a unanimous opinion of the eight participating justices. Yet the majority now flys directly in the face of Harnack by adopting a de novo rule for review in certiorari. It does so by what it euphemistically calls “an independent evaluation of the facts.” I take that to be a de novo review. At least it does not adhere to the principle of competent and substantial evidence.
If we are to take such a step, I consider it our duty to say so. The majority does not even give passing mention to Harnack. It simply sweeps it under the rug. This cavalier treatment is justified by the argument that Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 16 L.Ed.2d 600, and Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 demand it. Yet our Harnack case came long after those decisions. Apparently at that time this court felt no compulsion tp upset our traditional certio-rari procedure because of them.
If Harnack is wrong, we should say so. If it is distinguishable, we should say why. Candor demands no less than this.
Faced now with Harnack, which is apparently still strong and vital,.and with today’s contrary opinion, trial judges and lawyers will indeed be hard put to know the rules by which these matters are to be tried and appealed. We should not leave them in this legal morass, particularly since it is one of our own creation.
MOORE, C. J., and MASON, J., join in this special concurrence.