Mycogen Seeds v. Sands

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the intent of section 85.36(9)(c) was to “prevent overlapping or stacking of disabilities”
• noting that in applying the standards of chapter 17A, we affirm the district court if we reach the same conclusions
• recognizing “factual determinations in workers’ compensation cases are clearly vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency” (citation omitted)
• holding interpretation of workers’ compensation statutes not clearly vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency, triggering review under Iowa Code section 17A.19(10)(c)
• examining chapter 85 when deciding the scope of review of an issue in a workers’ compensation appeal
• examining chapter 85 when deciding the scope of review of an issue in a workers’ compensation appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).