General Info
Iowa Court of Appeals Elects Eisenhauer as Chief Judge PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Iowa Judicial Branch   
Friday, 10 February 2012 15:22

Des Moines, February 10, 2012— The Iowa Court of Appeals has elected Judge Larry J. Eisenhauer, Ankeny, as chief judge. Judge Eisenhauer has served on the court of appeals since 2001. He is the seventh chief judge since the state legislature established the court of appeals in 1976. He replaces Chief Judge Rosemary Sackett, recently retired.

 

"I am honored that the judges of the court of appeals elected me chief judge," Chief Judge Eisenhauer said. "Iowans are fortunate to have a court of appeals made up of thoughtful and hardworking judges supported by a dedicated staff. I am privileged to be a part of it."

 

Judge Eisenhauer was born in Emporia, Kansas, and received his undergraduate degree from Emporia State University in 1968. He then served in the United States Army for two years, including a tour of duty in Vietnam, before attending Drake University Law School. After graduating from Drake in 1974, he practiced law privately until 1985 and served as a juvenile referee from 1985 to 1993. He was appointed to the district court bench in 1994 and served as district court judge until his appointment to the court of appeals. Judge Eisenhauer serves on the Judicial Council Subcommittee on Court Records and Management Retention, co-chairs the Children's Justice Advisory Committee, and is a member of the Polk County, Iowa State, and American Bar Associations.

 

Previously, Chief Judge Eisenhauer was a faculty member of the Iowa Child Abuse Academy, chair of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Court Appointed Special Advocates, chair of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Juvenile Court Officers, and a member of the Iowa State Bar Association Family Law Committee, and the Advisory Board of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning Agency.  In 2005, he served as an International Judge for the United Nations Mission in Kosovo.  He was presented the Iowa Judges Association Award of Merit in 2008. Judge Eisenhauer is married, has two children, and one grandchild.

 

The Iowa Court of Appeals is an intermediate appellate court. It reviews appeals from trial court decisions that the supreme court has transferred to the court of appeals . A decision of the Iowa Court of Appeals is final unless reviewed by the Iowa Supreme Court on grant of further review. The majority of appeals filed in Iowa are decided by the court of appeals. Last year, the Iowa Court of Appeals issued 1,068 opinions.

 

In addition to judicial duties, the Chief Judge of the Iowa Court of Appeals supervises the business of the court, presides when present at a session of the court, and serves on the judicial council. Judge Eisenhauer will also continue to write opinions.

 

Previous Chief Judges of the Iowa Court of Appeals

 

1976-1978

Judge Robert Allbee

1978-1994

Judge Leo Oxberger

1994-1996

Judge Allen Donielson

1996

Judge Rosemary Sackett

1997

Judge Albert Habhab

1997-1998

Chief Justice Mark Cady

1999-2012

 

Judge Rosemary Sackett

 

 

# # #

 
The Hawkeye Caucus Weekly PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Haekeye Caucus   
Friday, 10 February 2012 15:00

All the world – including Osage – is a stage!

Kids in Mitchell County will have a chance “to be or not to be” every summer thanks to a new theater program started by a University of Iowa student and two alumni.

The Osage Summer Theatre Program is designed to help K-12 students learn about all aspects of the theater, from acting to directing to sets and costumes, in classes and workshops. The program started small last summer and still attracted 35 students to the two-week program that culminates in the production of three plays.

The program was founded by UI senior Maggie Blake, along with Theresa Augsburger and Maggie Jones, two recent UI alumni. Blake said the three of them, all theater majors, wanted to use their education and their skills to work with children and provide a kind of community service. They settled on Osage, population 3,400, as the location for their theater because it's Jones' hometown.

The program is held in Osage's community center, the Cedar River Complex, which includes a state-of-the-art performance facility. Interns from the UI and Mitchell County high schools will help with production and education. The group hopes to eventually build a network of youth community theater organizations like it throughout Iowa.

 

DID YOU KNOW?

The program not only introduces young children to the theater, it fills a need for high school students, too. The local school district recently cut its high school theater department, so students there who were interested in performing had nowhere to go.

 

QUOTE/UNQUOTE

University of Iowa student Maggie Blake: "Theater and kids are a great match because they get to put on hats and be silly and they love that, even the older kids. They can learn about teamwork and working together in a collaborative way."

 

FYI

The group is raising money to make the Osage program sustainable. It’s worked with Mitchell County businesses to develop sponsorships and recently received a $1,000 boost in the Rose Francis Elevator Pitch competition, sponsored by the John Pappajohn Entrepreneurial Center in the UI's Tippie College of Business. The competition gives UI students, faculty, and staff the opportunity to win start-up money for their businesses.

Update on Dental Building

In October, the University of Iowa dedicated a 33,000-square-foot addition to the UI College of Dentistry, which houses a wide array of programs and learning space to help prepare dental professionals for the 21st century.

The addition is now home to the Delta Dental of Iowa Foundation Geriatrics and Special Needs Clinic, the National Institutes of Health-supported Craniofacial Clinical Research Center, and small classrooms for problem-based and case-based learning. Endodontics, which was not a department in 1973 when the building was originally constructed, now has an outstanding facility.

Along with the new addition, the college’s research facilities were renovated and dedicated with support from the Roy J. Carver Charitable Trust.

The real icing on the cake? The new addition was finished on time and slightly under budget.

 

DID YOU KNOW?
The addition is part of a $65 million, multi-year College of Dentistry Building Transformation Project. The college is now beginning a six-phase, three- to four-year renovation of all dentistry clinics: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Periodontics, Prosthodontics, Family Dentistry, Oral Pathology, Radiology and Medicine, Admissions, Operative Dentistry, Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics.

 

QUOTE/UNQUOTE
UI College of Dentistry Dean David C. Johnsen: “We extend a huge thank-you to all the people and groups inside and outside the college who made this renovation project possible, including our elected officials, university officials, alumni, donors and friends.”

 

 
Grassley Bill to Require Televising Supreme Court Proceedings Clears Committee PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Friday, 10 February 2012 09:00

Thursday, February 9, 2012

WASHINGTON – Legislation written by Senators Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Dick Durbin, Judiciary Committee member, to require open proceedings of the Supreme Court to be televised passed the Senate Judiciary Committee today by a vote of 11-7.

The Cameras in the Courtroom Act would require television coverage of all open sessions of the Court, unless the Court decides, by a vote of the majority of justices, that doing so would constitute a violation of the due process rights of one or more of the parties before the Court. A similar bill was approved by a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee last Congress.

“Our Constitution requires that the government be accountable to the people.  The best way we can ensure that the federal government is accountable is to create transparency, openness, and access.  That’s why the Cameras in the Courtroom bill is necessary.  It would permit all Americans, not just the 200 people who can fit inside the public gallery, the opportunity to observe what is already a public proceeding,” Grassley said.  “This is a tremendous opportunity which would help increase understanding of, and appreciation for, the highest court in the land.”

Last year, Grassley asked Chief Justice John Roberts to provide audio and video coverage of the landmark Supreme Court proceedings of the federal health care reform law.  Grassley said that broadcasting the health care reform law proceedings would not only contribute to the public’s understanding of America’s judicial system, but provide an excellent educational opportunity on a case that has the potential to have a far reaching impact on every American.  Grassley has not yet received a response to his letter from the Chief Justice.

"Nine Justices have a tremendous amount of influence on the lives of the people of this country, yet people know very little about the highest court in our country.   In just a month or so the Supreme Court will hear arguments about a law that has the potential to impact every American.  Allowing cameras in the Supreme Court will help bring much needed transparency to a process that is largely unknown to the American public," Grassley said.

The Cameras in the Courtroom Act only applies to open sessions of the Supreme Court – sessions where members of the public are already invited to observe in person. Public scrutiny of Supreme Court proceedings will produce greater accountability, transparency, and understanding of our judicial system.

Grassley is also the author of bipartisan legislation that would allow the chief judge of federal trial and appellate courts to permit cameras in their courtrooms.  The bill directs the Judicial Conference, the principal policy-making entity for the federal courts, to draft nonbinding guidelines that judges can refer to in making a decision pertaining to the coverage of a particular case.  In addition, it instructs the Judicial Conference to issue mandatory guidelines for obscuring vulnerable witnesses such as undercover officers, victims of crime, and their families.  The bill has safeguards in place to protect vulnerable witnesses, to exclude jurors from broadcast, and to allow a judge to use his or her discretion in determining whether to allow cameras in the courtroom.

-30-


 
Iowa Supreme Court Opinions PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Iowa Judicial Branch   
Friday, 10 February 2012 08:56
February 10, 2012

Notice: The opinions posted on this site are slip opinions only. Under the Rules of Appellate Procedure a party has a limited number of days to request a rehearing after the filing of an opinion. Also, all slip opinions are subject to modification or correction by the court. Therefore, opinions on this site are not to be considered the final decisions of the court. The official published opinions of the Iowa Supreme Court are those published in the North Western Reporter published by West Group.

Opinions released before April 2006 and available in the archives are posted in Word format. Opinions released after April 2006 are posted to the website in PDF (Portable Document Format).   Note: To open a PDF you must have the free Acrobat Reader installed. PDF format preserves the original appearance of a document without requiring you to possess the software that created that document. For more information about PDF read: Using the Adobe Reader.

For your convenience, the Judicial Branch offers a free e-mail notification service for Supreme Court opinions, Court of Appeals opinions, press releases and orders. To subscribe, click here.

NOTE: Copies of these opinions may be obtained from the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Judicial Branch Building, 1111 East Court Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50319, for a fee of fifty cents per page.

No. 10–0795

DONALD A. WESTLING vs. HORMEL FOODS CORPORATION


 
Political intelligence registration provision PDF Print E-mail
News Releases - General Info
Written by Grassley Press   
Friday, 10 February 2012 08:42

Floor Speech of Sen. Chuck Grassley

Political Intelligence Amendment to the STOCK Act

Delivered Feb. 9, 2012

I would like to speak as if in morning business on my amendment to the STOCK Act.

In the dark of night Tuesday, the House released its version of the STOCK Act, which wiped out any chance at meaningful transparency for the political intelligence industry.

What we are faced with is a powerful industry that works in the shadows.  They don’t want people to know what they do or who they work for.  They are afraid of sunlight.

My amendment was adopted here in the Senate on a bipartisan basis, a rare occurrence recently.  It simply requires registration for lobbyists who seek information from Congress in order to trade on that information.

It’s straightforward.  If trades are taking place based on political intelligence obtained from Congress or the executive branch, people should know who is gathering such information.

Not requiring political intelligence professionals to register and disclose their contacts with government officials is a gaping loophole that my amendment fixes.  In fact, political intelligence firms actually brag about this loophole.

For example, on its website, the Open Source Intelligence Group, a political intelligence firm, says the following:

“Our political intelligence operation differs from standard 'lobbying' in that The OSINT Group is not looking to influence legislation on behalf of clients, but rather provide unique 'monitoring' of information through our personal relationships between lawmakers, staffers, and lobbyists.

Providing this service for clients who do not want their interest in an issue publicly known is an activity that does not need to be reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, thus providing an additional layer of confidentiality for our clients.

This service is ideal for companies seeking a competitive advantage by allowing a client's interests to remain confidential…”

If you didn’t hear it the first time, let me repeat some of that for you,

“Providing this service for clients who do not want their interest in an issue publicly known is an activity that does not need to be reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act, thus providing an additional layer of confidentiality for our clients.”

You have it here on paper.  This firm is telling potential clients, if you don’t want anyone to know what you are asking of federal officials, hire us.  That’s just wrong, but that’s why firms like this don’t want to register.

If somebody on Wall Street is trying to make money off of conversations they have with senators or staff, we should know who they are representing.  It’s just that simple.

Since the passage of my amendment, which would require political intelligence lobbyists to register as lobbyists, I have heard a great deal of “concern” from the lobbying community.

Political intelligence professionals have claimed that they should do their business in secret for several reasons.

First, they’ve said that if they are required to register, they will no longer be able to sell information to their clients because people will not want to hire them.  That makes me wonder, what do they have to hide?

Second, they have said that many of them have large numbers of clients, and it would take them a lot of time to register these large numbers of secret clients.  Again, that makes me think we need more transparency to find out who all these people buying political intelligence are.

Third, they have claimed that it would not address the so-called “20 percent loophole” that allows people who spend less than 20 percent of their time lobbying from having to register as lobbyists.

Well, on this, I have some good news for them.  We don’t make the mistake that caused the 20 percent loophole.

My amendment requires anyone who makes a political intelligence contact to have to register.   No loopholes, no deals, no special treatment – everyone registers.

Finally, I just want to assure people: Journalists won’t need to register.  A constituent looking for information in order to make business decisions won’t have to register.  Only political intelligence brokers, people who seek information so that others can trade securities, would have to register.

As I said before, if people want to trade stocks from what we do here in Congress, we should know who you are.  The American people deserve a little sunlight into this industry.  Last night the House turned away from transparency.  The House supported the status quo.

What we need is a full and open conference process so that Congress, both the House and Senate, can work together and improve this bill.  If not, I worry that we will miss the best opportunity we have had for openness and transparency in years.

-30-

 
<< Start < Prev 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 Next > End >>

Page 361 of 462