Skip to content
The COVID Project
  1. Library
  2. Standing duties: Iowa
  3. DUT-IA-017

Ex. DUT-IA-017 Standing duty Primary source read

Riley Drive Entertainment I, Inc. v. Reynolds, No. 20-1510 (Iowa Feb. 18, 2022) (amended Apr. 7, 2022)

Riley Drive Entertainment I, Inc. d/b/a Tonic Bar, et al. v. Governor Kimberly K. Reynolds and Iowa Department of Public Health - opinion affirming dismissal as moot

Supreme Court of Iowa (Mansfield, J., for a unanimous court) · Iowa (Court)

The COVID Project

The record

Jurisdiction
Iowa
Level
Court
Authority
Riley Drive Entm't I, Inc. v. Reynolds, No. 20-1510, slip op. (Iowa Feb. 18, 2022, amended Apr. 7, 2022)
Issued
2022-02-18 Feb. 18, 2022
Effective
n/a (opinion) (read as 2022-02-18)
End
n/a
In force
Feb. 18, 2022 (no end date recorded; counted as in force for 120 days)
Quarters
2020 Q32020 Q4
Limitation types
Business closureAlcohol and barsOperating condition
Addressees
  • specified businesses (licensed bars in Polk and Dallas Counties; by the order's terms, all bars, taverns, wineries, breweries, distilleries and night clubs in six counties)
Character
adjudication
Collection
Standing duties: Iowa DUT-IA

Operative words

All six businesses were required to close temporarily as a result of the Governor's August 27 order.... Therefore, without reaching the merits of the plaintiffs' challenge, we affirm the district court's dismissal of this case as moot.

Penalty

n/a (the opinion records the compulsory character of the closure; enforcement is stated in DUT-IA-013, DUT-IA-009)

What it required

Judicial record that the August 27, 2020 proclamation (IA-023) 'temporarily required bars and taverns in six counties to close their doors,' that the plaintiffs' request for a temporary injunction was denied, and that the Polk County District Court held the pandemic a 'public health disaster' under § 135.140(6) and the closure a 'reasonable' and 'necessary' measure under § 135.144(3) ('It simply means that there is some connection between the Proclamation's restrictions and the disaster it is trying to address'); the Supreme Court affirmed on mootness alone. Character as recorded: adjudication (challenge to orders dismissed).

Retrieval note

The Supreme Court did not decide the merits; the § 135.144(3) holding is the district court's, recited in Part II of the opinion (slip op. at 10). The opinion also recites that the August 27 order required bars 'located in hotels, casinos, movie theaters, or sporting venues' to close to the public. Use the opinion for what the courts recorded, not for a merits ruling.