Court Opinion

ID: 9719834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:06:25.664674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:10.526518
License: Public Domain

Thompson, J.
(dissenting) — I am in disagreement with the result reached by the majority and with the reasoning by which it is achieved. The majority opinion concedes that the defendant’s position probably would have been sound before the adoption of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
But it thinks rule 308, which says certiorari shall not be denied because plaintiff has another plain, speedy and adequate remedy, abrogates the general rule that administrative remedies must be exhausted before relief will be afforded by the courts.
I think rule 308 means only that certiorari will not be denied because there is another adequate legal remedy, and has no application to administrative remedies. We have often held that when a tribunal is set up by the legislature to hear grievances, its jurisdiction is exclusive until it has had the opportunity to act. Griswold Land & Credit Co. v. County of Calhoun, 198 Iowa 1240, 1242, 201 N.W. 11, 12, and cases cited. I cannot agree that rule 308 has any application to the rule requiring resort to administrative remedies before resorting to the courts.