 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] International Union v. Iowa Department of Workforce Development6/12/2002
26 (Iowa 1997). Judicial review of a declination to issue declaratory orders is far from de novo. The Iowa scheme accords considerable discretion to the agency, so long as it does not decline unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously. Bonfield, 60 Iowa L. Rev. at 818-20. The requirement that the agency specify which of the listed grounds prompted declination should not be understood to elevate the court's scope of review. The stated grounds for declining to rule are reviewed only to assess whether there has been an abuse of the agency's discretion or action that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Among the reasons for declining cited by the agency here were (1) the questions posed are premised on past, not future, conduct; (2) the questions do not serve the purpose of a declaratory ruling; and (3) they involve and might adversely affect the rights of nonparties to the action. We agree with the district court that the agency's declination was not unreasonable and certainly no abuse of discretion.
The petition is out of plumb with the theory and purpose of declaratory relief. Declaratory actions differ from nearly all others, such as tort, contract, and most special actions. Typically, parties seek court judgments to resolve consequences of past acts or conduct. The view of most court proceedings is retrospective. The view for declaratory relief is prospective. These unique proceedings are designed to address the consequences of contemplated or imagined future conduct. In the present case no future conduct, hypothetical or otherwise, is at issue, only a complaint addressed to whether the agencies have been doing their job. The Union's petition states:
he only truly affected interested persons in this matter are the agencies involved and their administrative heads since this is an action designed to compel specific agency action under specified circumstances, not a hypothetical question affecting a legal interpretation which would involve specific employers or insurance carriers.
We think the petition is a clear request for an advisory opinion. We have said we have neither "a duty nor the authority to render advisory opinions." Hartford-Carlisle Sav. Bank v. Shivers, 566 N.W.2d 877, 884 (Iowa 1997). As stated in Grains of Iowa L.C. v. Iowa Department of Agriculture & Land Stewardship, 562 N.W.2d 441, 445 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997), "a controversy involving a statute or ordinance must be justiciable-that is, there must be specific adverse claims, based upon present rather than future or speculative facts, which are ripe for judicial adjustment." (Citation omitted.) " courts frequently decline to pass upon remote, future, or contingent rights which may never arise, at least where there is no present need for such determination or, because of absence of parties or otherwise, the determination may not be final." Id. (citation omitted). Advisory opinions, especially in the agency context, are not particularly useful to the public due to "their lack of binding effect in the absence of an estoppel." Bonfield, 60 Iowa L. Rev. at 809.
A declaratory order petition contemplates a ruling, binding on only the parties to the action, on the specific facts alleged so long as the facts in question presented are purely hypothetical. The Union's request for an opinion regarding agency duties, based on prior conduct does not fulfill the declaratory order requirements. Because the purpose of a declaratory order is to set forth a legal opinion based on hypothetical or future circumstances, the petition does not serve to end the controversy. Rather it will serve only to commence litigation among groups not parties to this action. So the commissioner and district court corre
Page 1 2 3 Iowa Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|