State of Iowa ex rel. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General of Iowa v. Midwest Pork, L.C., Peter DeCoster, Austin J. DeCoster d/b/a DeCoster Farms of Iowa and Iowa Ag-Construction Company, Inc.

625 N.W.2d 694 (Iowa 2001) · Supreme Court of Iowa · April 25, 2001 · No. No. 99-0348

Summary

The Supreme Court of Iowa held that Iowa Code section 455B.202(2)(a) prohibited a person subject to a pending environmental enforcement action from constructing confinement feeding operation structures for another person or entity. The court concluded that the statute's term "construct" included physically building the facilities but did not include financing their construction. The court reversed and remanded for an injunction against Austin DeCoster and Iowa Ag-Construction, while affirming dismissal as to Midwest Pork and Peter DeCoster.

Holdings

  1. The term "construct" includes building an animal feeding operation structure for oneself or for another person or entity; the statute is not limited to construction for the builder's own use.
  2. Financing the construction of confinement facilities does not constitute constructing those facilities under the 1997 version of section 455B.202(2)(a).
  3. Iowa Ag-Construction and Austin DeCoster violated section 455B.202(2)(a) by building confinement facilities for Midwest Pork, even though others owned the facilities.
  4. Midwest Pork and Peter DeCoster were not subject to the prohibition because there was no evidence they were parties to a pending chapter 455B enforcement action, and the State abandoned its agency and sham-corporation theories.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the term "construct" in Iowa Code section 455B.202(2)(a), as it existed in 1997, includes building a confinement feeding structure for another person or entity.
  2. Whether financing construction of a confinement feeding structure constitutes constructing the structure under section 455B.202(2)(a).
  3. Whether Iowa Ag-Construction and Austin DeCoster violated section 455B.202(2)(a) by building confinement facilities for Midwest Pork.
  4. Whether Midwest Pork and Peter DeCoster were subject to the statutory prohibition.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (11)

  • Perkins v. Madison County Livestock & Fair Ass'n, 613 N.W.2d 264, 267 (Iowa 2000)(followed)
  • State v. Vargason, 607 N.W.2d 691, 695 (Iowa 2000)(followed)
  • State v. Westeen, 591 N.W.2d 203, 208 (Iowa 1999)(followed)
  • State v. Guzman-Juarez, 591 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Iowa 1999)(followed)
  • State ex rel. Miller v. DeCoster, 596 N.W.2d 898, 902 (Iowa 1999)(followed)
  • Perkins v. Madison County Livestock & Fair Ass'n, 613 N.W.2d 264, 269 (Iowa 2000)(followed)
  • Garwick v. Iowa Department of Transportation, 611 N.W.2d 286, 290 n. 3 (Iowa 2000)(followed)
  • William C. Mitchell, Ltd. v. Brown, 576 N.W.2d 342, 347 (Iowa 1998)(followed)
  • Iowa West Racing Ass'n v. Iowa Racing & Gaming Commission, 546 N.W.2d 898, 900 (Iowa 1996)(followed)
  • Holiday Inns Franchising, Inc. v. Branstad, 537 N.W.2d 724, 728 (Iowa 1995)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 11.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…