Gacke v. Pork Xtra, L.L.C.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that our disposition of the plaintiffs’ state constitutional challenge to section 657.11(2) made it unnecessary to decide whether the statute also violated the Federal Takings Clause
• holding Iowa Code section 657.11(2) violates the takings clause of the Iowa Constitution and, as applied to the plaintiffs, violates the inalienable rights clause of the Iowa Constitution
• stating that “the constitutional protection embodied in Iowa’s Inalienable Rights Clause is not a mere glittering generality without substance or meaning,” but is instead “intended to secure citizens’ pre-existing common law rights (sometimes known as ‘natural rights’
• holding statute “may be enforced to the extent it operates constitutionally”
• stating that “the constitutional protection embodied in Iowa’s Inalienable Rights Clause is not a mere glittering generality without substance or meaning,” but is instead “intended to secure citizens’ pre-existing common law rights (sometimes known as ‘natural rights’
• finding evidence sufficient to support finding of nuisance even though defendant’s “confinement operation was a customary enterprise in the neighborhood”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).