Rule 1.1504.Statement re prior presentation
Division XV: Injunctions · Last amended February 15, 2002 · Last verified July 15, 2026
Full Text of Rule 1.1504
Plain-English Summary
Rule 1.1504 works together with Rule 1.1503 to prevent a party from quietly repeating a request for a temporary injunction after a judge has already turned it down. The petition itself must state — or the attorney must certify on it — whether a petition seeking the same relief, or part of it, was presented before and refused by any court or justice. If so, the petition must name who refused it and when.
The obligation applies even when only part of the relief now sought overlaps with an earlier, refused request. A party cannot avoid disclosure by rephrasing the request or narrowing it slightly; the rule reaches any petition seeking “the same relief, or part thereof.”
This disclosure gives the judge or justice reviewing the new petition the context needed to evaluate it, including whatever reasoning led to the earlier refusal. Leaving it out, or misstating it, undermines the certification the attorney is making on the petition.
Frequently Asked Questions
What has to be disclosed on a petition for a temporary injunction?
Rule 1.1504 requires the petition to state, or the attorney to certify, whether a petition for the same relief or part of it was previously presented to and refused by any court or justice, and if so, who refused it and when.
Does this disclosure requirement apply if only part of my request was refused before?
Yes. Rule 1.1504 covers a petition seeking the same relief or part of it, so partial overlap with an earlier, refused request still triggers the disclosure.
Who makes this certification — the party or the attorney?
The rule allows either: the petition can state the information directly, or the attorney can certify it on the petition.
What information must be included if an earlier request was refused?
The petition must identify by whom the earlier request was refused and when that refusal occurred.
Why does Iowa require this kind of disclosure?
It works with the endorsement requirement in Rule 1.1503 to keep a party from presenting the same refused request to a series of judges without anyone knowing it was already turned down.