State v. Lasley, _____ N.W.2d _____ (Iowa 2005)(No. 96/03-1938)
Lester Tobias Lasley was an employee of the Meskwaki Trading Post, which is owned by the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa. The Trading Post is on tribal land in Tama County. Lasley was charged by Tama County authorities with providing tobacco to an underaged person in violation of section 453A.2(1), Iowa Code.

Before a Tama County magistrate, an attorney for the tribe argued that the state lacked civil regulatory jurisdiction over the tribe and its reservation. The magistrate agreed with arguments proffered by the tribe and dismissed the charge, concluding that Iowa laws regulating tobacco were regulatory and could not be enforced either against the tribe or its employees. The state appealed.

The Supreme Court, Lavorato, C.J., reverses, holding that the Iowa courts do have jurisdiction of the case and that the tobacco regulation statute is criminal and prohibitory. Under Federal laws, the state of Iowa can enforce such provisions on tribal lands and against its employees. The Court notes that a law adopted by Congress in 1948 specifically confers criminal jurisdiction to the state of Iowa over criminal offenses committed by or against Indians on the Sac and Fox Indian Reservation. Also, a law adopted by Congress in 1953 (Public Law 280) invited states to exercise civil jurisdiction on Indian reservations. Iowa did so in 1967 when it adopted section 1.12 of the Iowa Code.

The Court analyzes section 453A.2(1) of the Code to determine whether it is criminal/prohibitory or civil/regulatory. The Court concludes that the statue is criminal/prohibitory, noting that the statute

does not merely regulate the sale of tobacco. Rather, it absolutely prohibits one from furnishing in any manner any tobacco, tobacco products, or cigarettes to any person under eighteen years of age. So the intent of the law is generally to prohibit certain conduct – the hallmark under the Cabazon [480 U.S. 202 (1987)] test for establishing that a statute is criminal/prohibitory.

(Emphasis in original.) The Court notes the statute applies statewide and is part of the legislature’s exercise of police power to protect underaged persons from the harmful effects of tobacco products and to prevent distribution of tobacco to young people.

. . . [T]he purpose is to strictly prohibit the conduct proscribed by the statute in order to promote the safety and health of all underaged persons. Allowing the sale of tobacco products to underaged persons on the Tribe’s reservation would circumvent the legislature’s determination that furnishing such products in any manner to underaged persons is dangerous to the health of such persons.

The case is remanded for further proceedings.

Denial of Claim for Permanent Partial Disability Compensation Benefits Affirmed
Hill v. Fleetguard, Inc., _____ N.W.2d _____ (Iowa 2005)(No. 95/04-0621)
Janice Hill argued she was entitled to permanent partial disability benefits in a workers’ compensation claim against her employer, Fleetguard, Inc. and its insurance company, Travelers Insurance Co. Hill has been out of the workforce for about twenty years because of a long history of physical difficulties, including pain in her chest, abdomen, back, neck, shoulder, along with numbness and tingling in her right thumb. She also has experienced cervical strain, lumbosacral strain, degenerative cervical osteophytes, costochondritis, and mitral valve prolapse. When she began working at Fleetguard, she found that the longer that she worked, the more her physical symptoms of discomfort increased. A deputy and the workers’ compensation commissioner denied permanent partial benefits. The Winnebago County District Court affirmed. Hill appealed.

The Supreme Court, Streit, J., affirms. The Court declines to consider Hill’s argument that the district court should have treated the deputy’s determinations of witness veracity “as a piece of evidence” to be placed on the scales weighing the supporting and detracting evidence of substantiality. The Court rejects an argument that the commissioner injected material facts into the final decision that did not have a basis in the record. Finally, the Court concludes that the evidence before the deputy and the commissioner was substantial that Hill did not have a permanent injury or functional impairment. None of the doctors who examined her assigned a permanent impairment rating to Hill and none found a permanent injury. Generally, they found that the work at Fleetguard aggravated her preexisting conditions. The evidence supports the conclusions by the deputy and the commissioner that Hill was not entitled to permanent partial disability benefits. The district court decision upholding their decision is affirmed.