This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps reside within one and one-half miles of D's facility. D conducts corn wet milling operations, a process that transforms corn kernels into products for commercial and industrial use. Ps allege the corn wet milling operation creates hazardous byproducts and harmful chemicals, many of which are released directly into the atmosphere. The by-products include: particulate matter, volatile organic compounds including acetaldehyde and other aldehydes, sulfur dioxide, starch, and hydrochloric acid. Ps assert that the polluting chemicals and particles are blown onto their properties. Particulate matter is visible on properties, yards, and grounds, and various chemical pollutants are also present. Ps claim that D has failed to replace its worn and outdated technology with available technology that would eliminate or drastically reduce the pollution. Ps claim to suffer frompersistent irritations, discomforts, annoyances, inconveniences, and are at risk for serious health effects. Ps contend D's use of its facility constitutes a nuisance under the common law and Iowa Code chapter 657, which provides a statutory framework for nuisance claims. They claim that D has operated its facility in a manner that unreasonably interferes with the reasonable use and enjoyment of their properties. Ps also rely on res ipsa loquitor, arguing that the release of the toxic substances would not ordinarily occur in the absence of D's negligence, and the acts or omissions of the equipment and personnel that led to the toxic releases were under D's control at all relevant times. Ps allege that D's operations constitute a past and continuing trespass. D filed a motion for summary judgment. D claimed the Clean Air Act's (CAA) comprehensive regulatory framework preempted Ps' causes of action. D claimed Iowa Code chapter 455B, which regulates emissions, preempted the claims, and the case presented a nonjusticiable political question because a lawsuit impacting facility emissions lacks judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the issues. The court concluded the CAA established a comprehensive regulatory scheme that displaced state law and that Iowa Code chapter 455B preempted Ps' common law claims. The district court reasoned that controversies related to air emissions were to be determined by state regulators, not by judges and juries in common law actions. The court held that Ps’ action amounted to political questions not amenable to resolution by the judiciary in a lawsuit. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.