What is the standard of reasonable necessity?
To justify the invocation or exercise of inherent powers, a court must commonly show that the powers are reasonably necessary to achieve the specific purpose for which the exercise is sought. Another wording equates reasonable necessity to what “is essential to the existence of the court and necessary to the orderly and efficient exercise of the court’s jurisdiction.” Myers v. Emke, 476 N.W.2d 84, 85 (Iowa 1991). What constitutes reasonable necessity (i.e., what must be proven factually) in any given case depends upon the particular judicial purpose to which inherent powers might be applied. Who has the burden of proof (i.e., the court or the legislature or executive challenging the court’s inherent-powers order) is not consistent among the states. The level of proof has only recently received much attention; whereas “preponderance of the evidence” was long the requirement, some appellate courts raised the level to “clear, cogent and convincing” evidence because they were concerned tha
