Scott Glenn Campbell v. City Development Board of the State of Iowa
This text of Scott Glenn Campbell v. City Development Board of the State of Iowa (Scott Glenn Campbell v. City Development Board of the State of Iowa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1690 Filed March 19, 2025
SCOTT GLENN CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
CITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE STATE OF IOWA, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.
Scott Campbell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his judicial review
action. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Scott Campbell, Ankeny, self-represented appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Eric Dirth, Assistant Attorney General,
for appellee State.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
Scott Campbell appeals the district court’s dismissal of his judicial review
action. Because we have no issues to review, we dismiss the appeal.
Campbell petitioned for judicial review after the City Development Board of
the State of Iowa approved an application for voluntary annexation of 77.75 acres,
including 5.73 acres owned by Campbell and his wife. But Campbell, representing
himself, neither filed a brief nor attended the judicial review hearing, and no
counsel appeared on his behalf. Because Campbell made no argument, the
district court deemed this waiver of any issues and dismissed the petition. See
Aluminum Co. of Am. v. Musal, 622 N.W.2d 476, 479–80 (Iowa 2001) (“[I]f the
parties fail to raise any issues by not filing any briefs, the reviewing court has
nothing to consider.”). While Campbell appeals, we are similarly left with nothing
to review. See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“It is a
fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised
and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.”). Because
it would not be “a sensible exercise of appellate review” to determine a case
without any arguments or ruling, we decline to decide this appeal and dismiss. See
id.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Scott Glenn Campbell v. City Development Board of the State of Iowa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-glenn-campbell-v-city-development-board-of-the-state-of-iowa-iowactapp-2025.