The petition shall state the grounds on which the action is brought, and if it involves an office, franchise or right claimed by others than the defendant, it shall name them; and they may be made parties.
Rule 1.1304.Petition
Division XIII: Quo Warranto · Last amended February 15, 2002 · Last verified July 15, 2026
In one sentenceRule 1.1304 requires the quo warranto petition to state the grounds for the action, and if the office, franchise, or right at issue is claimed by someone other than the defendant, to name that person so they may be made a party.
Full Text of Rule 1.1304
Plain-English Summary
Rule 1.1304 sets the basic pleading requirement for a quo warranto petition: it must state the grounds on which the action is brought. That grounds requirement ties the petition to one of the categories described in rule 1.1301 — unlawfully holding office, exercising ultra vires corporate power, or misusing a state-granted authorization.
The rule adds a specific naming requirement when the case involves competing claims to an office, franchise, or right. If the office, franchise, or right at issue is also claimed by someone other than the defendant, the petition must name that person. Naming them serves a real purpose — the rule then allows them to be made a party to the action, so the court can resolve competing claims to the same office or right in a single proceeding rather than leaving a third claimant's rights undetermined.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does a quo warranto petition need to say?
Rule 1.1304 requires the petition to state the grounds on which the action is brought, tying it to one of the categories in rule 1.1301.
What if someone other than the defendant also claims the office or franchise in dispute?
Rule 1.1304 requires the petition to name that person when the office, franchise, or right involved is claimed by someone besides the defendant.
If a third party claiming the same office is named in the petition, does that mean they're automatically part of the case?
Rule 1.1304 says they may be made a party once named, which allows their joinder rather than automatically making them a party by the act of naming alone.
Why would the petition need to name a third claimant instead of just resolving the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant?
Because quo warranto often decides who is entitled to hold a specific office or franchise, resolving that question with a competing claimant left out could leave the underlying right unsettled — naming them lets the court bring the real dispute into one case.
Does this rule apply to all five categories of quo warranto defendants under rule 1.1301?
Rule 1.1304 applies generally to the petition in a quo warranto action, with its naming requirement triggered specifically when the office, franchise, or right at issue is also claimed by a third person.
Source & verification. Rule text and the Comment are
reproduced verbatim from the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure, adopted by the
Iowa Supreme Court. Last verified July 15, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: iowa quo warranto petition requirementsnaming third party quo warranto iowarule 1.1304 iowa civil procedurequo warranto grounds pleading iowacompeting claim to office iowa quo warranto