City of Janesville v. McCartney, 67433
| Decision Date | 24 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 67433,67433 |
| Parties | The CITY OF JANESVILLE, Iowa, Plaintiff, v. Ralph F. McCARTNEY, Judge of the District Court of Iowa in and for Bremer County, Defendant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Dale E. Goeke and Gary J. Boveia, Waverly, for plaintiff.
Considered by LeGRAND, P.J., and UHLENHOPP, HARRIS, McCORMICK, and McGIVERIN, JJ.
We granted certiorari to review a district court ruling that nullified a city speeding ordinance and reversed two magistrate's convictions under the ordinance. We agree that the ordinance should not have been nullified and hence sustain the writ.
Janesville ordinance 2.1-2.0411 established a speed limit of 35 miles per hour along a stretch of Iowa Highway 218 which extends within the corporate limits. Signs were posted which informed the motorists of the limit. Two motorists were arrested on separate charges after traversing the highway at speeds of 48 miles per hour and 52 miles per hour. After the magistrate found them guilty both motorists appealed their convictions to district court. The cases were consolidated and, after a hearing, the district court set the convictions aside upon holding the ordinance invalid.
I. There is a threshold question of our jurisdiction to review. It is argued that the city cannot appeal as a matter of right under Iowa Code § 814.5(1) (1981) and did not meet the ten day (Iowa Code § 814.4 (1981)) deadline for seeking discretionary review under Iowa Code § 814.5(2).
Under Iowa R.Crim.P. 54, as it was written at the time in question, discretionary review was not available to the city. Iowa Code §§ 814.4 and 814.5(2) accord such a right to the state but not to the city. Iowa R.Crim.P. 54(7) has since been added and allows discretionary review to a plaintiff. We take "plaintiff" to mean either the state or city, whichever is prosecuting. But the change became effective after the time material here. Because neither the rule nor the statutes then provided the city a manner of review, certiorari was available. Curtis v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Clinton County, 270 N.W.2d 447, 449 (Iowa 1978).
The city's right to review by way of certiorari is not limited to the ten days allowed for petitioning for discretionary review. Rather, the time limits for certiorari apply. The city here complied by filing its petition for certiorari 28 days after the district court judgment.
II. The district court found the 35 miles per hour local speeding ordinance invalid by concluding highway 218 in Janesville was a "suburban district," subject to a 45 mile per hour speed limit. A number of motor vehicle statutes are involved. The highway, at the point in question, is not in a business, residence or school district. Hence, under Iowa Code § 321.1(60) it is in a suburban district. Section 321.285(4) sets a 45 mile per hour limit for suburban districts.
The legislature has plainly provided for state, rather than local, dominance of traffic law:
The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein and no local authority shall enact or enforce any rule or regulation in conflict with the provisions of this chapter unless expressly authorized herein. Local authorities may, however, adopt additional traffic regulations which are not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter.
Iowa Code § 321.235.
Local authorities are nevertheless given considerable authority in traffic matters. See Iowa Code § 321.236. Section 321.293 allows a city to set a higher speed limit than those established for the various districts (including suburban) by section 321.285. The privilege, however, operates but one way; the city can raise the limit but not lower it.
When specific conditions at a given point call for it, § 321.290 provides for flexibility in setting limits at variance with those provided by section 321.285:
Whenever the department shall determine upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that any speed limit hereinbefore set forth is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist at any intersection or other place or upon any part of the primary road system or upon any part of a primary road extension, said department shall determine and declare a reasonable and safe speed limit thereat which shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected at such intersection or other place or part of the highway.
Whenever the council in any city shall determine upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that any speed limit hereinbefore set forth is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist at any intersection or other place or upon any part of the city street system, except primary road extensions, said council shall determine and adopt by ordinance such higher or lower speed limit as it deems reasonable and safe thereat. Such speed limit shall be effective when proper and appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected at such intersections or other place or part of the street.
Iowa Code § 321.290 (emphasis added).
The city cannot rely on the second paragraph of the section because the authority to vary the regular limits is withheld from cities when primary highways are involved. So the city relies on the first paragraph of § 321.290.
The district court found that the department (of transportation) made an investigation of highway 218 and, in accordance with the power given it in the first paragraph of the section, concluded that the speed limit at the point in question should be reduced from 45 to 35 miles per hour. Signs displaying the lower speed limit were set in place and according to § 321.290 the new limit was thereafter in effect. In response to the department's investigation and reduction of the speed limit the city changed its ordinance to correspond with the new state limit.
The motorists were convicted of speeding under the city ordinance. But the showing of the investigation and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burroughs v. City of Davenport Zoning Bd. of Adjustment
...v. Nicoletto , 862 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Iowa 2015) ("A sensible, logical construction is the goal ...." (quoting City of Janesville v. McCartney , 326 N.W.2d 785, 787 (Iowa 1982) )); Yeager v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review , 196 Pa.Super. 162, 173 A.2d 802, 807–08 (1961) (stating courts must......
-
Bousman v. Dist. Ct. for Clinton County
...giving criminal defendants the opportunity for appellate review does not mean that Bousman is without a remedy. In City of Janesville v. McCartney, 326 N.W.2d 785 (Iowa 1982), we allowed review of a district court ruling by certiorari where neither rule nor statute provided for any other ma......
-
State v. McKinney
...entitled to appeal. However, the chapter does not explicitly give the county a right to appeal in any case. See City of Janesville v. McCartney, 326 N.W.2d 785, 785 (Iowa 1982) (holding Iowa Code sections 814.4-.5 grant the state the right to appeal, but do not grant the same right to citie......
-
State v. Nicoletto, 14–1193.
...the words used in the statute.” Nicoletto, 845 N.W.2d at 426. “A sensible, logical construction is the goal....” City of Janesville v. McCartney, 326 N.W.2d 785, 787 (Iowa 1982). We must determine whether the word “imprisonment” in the context of section 663A.1 means only confinement in a s......