Hunziker v. Iowa
Iowa Supreme Court
519 N.W.2d 367 (1994)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
In 1978, Iowa (defendant) enacted a statute that provided the state archaeologist with the authority to deny permission to disinter, or remove, ancient human remains that were more than 150 years old and remains that the archaeologist determined to have historical or scientific significance. In 1988, a group of land developers, Erben Hunziker, Donald Furman, Friedrich and Son, Inc., and Buck Construction Company, Inc. (the developers) (plaintiffs) purchased a large tract of land to develop for residential homes. In 1990, the developers sold lot 15 to Jon Fleming, who planned to construct a home on the lot. In 1991, the Iowa state archaeologist found human remains located in a Native American burial mound on lot 15. The remains were estimated to be over 1,000 years old. Pursuant to the Iowa statute regarding human remains, the archaeologist prohibited disturbance of the burial mound and designated a buffer zone around the mound. Consequently, lot 15 became unbuildable and the local municipality denied Fleming a building permit. The developers refunded Fleming and took back title to lot 15. At that point, the land was nearly valueless. The developers then brought a mandamus action, seeking a condemnation of lot 15 and just compensation. Both the developers and Iowa moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Iowa. The developers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lavorato, J.)
Dissent (Snell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.