Court Opinion

ID: 9858108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:14:44.292357+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:02:37.674002
License: Public Domain

NEUMAN, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree that the result reached by the majority is compelled by precedent, notably Iowa Public Service Co. v. Iowa State Commerce Commission, 263 N.W.2d 766, 769 (Iowa 1978), and Minnesota Valley Canning Co. v. Rehnblom, 242 Iowa 1112, 1116-17, 49 N.W.2d 553, 554 (1951). But to the extent that the opinion extends its reach beyond chapter 17A judicial review proceedings, I am reluctant to join it.
The important interest of adjudicating cases on their merits, rather than dismissing them on technicalities, is not served by equating venue and jurisdiction. As one court has wisely noted, the distinction is designed to facilitate transfer to the proper court where a plaintiff makes “an erroneous guess with regard to the existence of some elusive fact of the kind upon which venue provisions often turn.” Ko-Am Enter. v. Davis, 657 P.2d 399, 400 (Alaska 1983) (quoting Goldlawr v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 466, 82 S.Ct. 913, 915, 8 L.Ed.2d 39, 42 (1962)). The soundness of this reasoning seems to me equally applicable whether a case is being filed as an original action or is appellate in nature. In either case, if the procedural hurdle presupposes an infirmity in venue, rather than jurisdiction, transfer — not dismissal — should be the favored remedy. See Banke, 474 N.W.2d at 561-62.
ANDREASEN, J., joins this special concurrence.