United States District Court for Northern District of Iowa, United States District Court for Southern District of Iowa, & U.S. Court of Appeals For The Eighth Circuit
· United States District Court – Northern District of Iowa
o Eastern Division
§ 4200 C Street SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 Ph: 319.286.2300
o Cedar Rapids Division
o Central Division
§ 320 Sixth Street, Sioux City, IA 51101 Ph: 712.233.3900
o Western Division
o Chief Judge Linda R. Reade
o Court fees and costs
o Pro Se Help
o Divisional Map by County
· United States District Court – Southern District of Iowa
§ 123 East Walnut, Des Moines, IA 50309 Ph: 515.284.6248
§ 6th & Broadway, Council Bluffs, IA 51502 Ph: 712.328.0283
o Davenport Division
§ 131 E. 4th Street, Davenport, IA 52801 Ph: 563.884.7607
o Chief Judge Robert W. Pratt
· 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
o Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse, 111 South 10th Street. St. Louis, MO 63102 Ph: 314.244.2400
o United States Court House, 316 N. Robert Street. St. Paul, MN 55101 Ph: 651.848.1300
o Chief Judge James B. Loken
o Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges
U.S. District Court Civil Forms:
Rules and Procedures:
The Supreme Court of Iowa had better change gears involving our fundamental right to parent over the next few appellate cases headed their way or they're in for a major headache!!!
· Types of U.S. Supreme Court Jurisdiction:
o Direct Appeal – the appellant can bypass the courts of appeals and have the Supreme Court hear the case. Note: Congress limited direct appeals in 1988, as part of its reform to give the Supreme Court much greater control over its own docket.
o Certiorari – review for the petitioner is discretionary. Virtually all review to the Supreme Court now occurs when the Supreme Court, in its discretion, decides to accept a case. Note: The Court grants certiorari for the interest of the public, not merely for the interest of the parties. Thus, the Court will not ordinarily grant certiorari merely to achieve justice in a particular case.
o Appeal - the appellant will receive Supreme Court review, in theory as a right. The Supreme Court rules require the appellant to file a jurisdictional statement, which is similar to the petition for certiorari.
Below is a sample of a few cases we may expand upon or reference in federal court for various reasons. Rest assured, equality is coming and at a faster pace than what our Courts are apparently willing to accept.
Ex parte Young (1908) where the Court held that a state officer could be forbidden in a federal suit from enforcing state law.
· The holding was based upon legal fiction that the officer could not be given authority to violate federal law so that the suit was not against the state authority itself.
· Today, fiction is maintained to the extent that a state officer must be the named defendant in such a suit.
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976) found that Congress had explicitly made states subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race and gender discrimination in employment matters.
Monell v. Dept. of Social Services (1978) the Supreme Court ruled that Cities and other local government units were “persons” who could be sued for violating an individual’s civil rights or other federal rights un 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
· The plaintiff must establish, at a minimum, a “personal state” in the outcome. This stake requires a two-fold showing:
o First, a “distinct and palpable (obvious) injury” to the plaintiff.
o Second, a “fairly traceable causal connection” between the claimed injury and the contact that conduct that plaintiff challenges. Burden can be met by showing a “substantial likelihood” that the relief requested of the court will redress the claimed injury.
Craig v. Boren (1976), bar owners and bartenders were prosecuted for selling beer to men at the age of 18, even though they could have sold beer legally under the statute to women who were under the age of 18. The Court allowed a third party, “sellers of beer” to raise the equal protection claims of young men between the ages of 18 and 21 and found that the classification allowing sales of beer to women at those ages, but not men, violated equal protection.
The Child Labor Tax Case (1922) – the Court held that this tax was not a true tax but only a “penalty” for violation of commercial regulation.
· It was invalid under the prior decision because it exceeded the power of Congress and invaded that areas reserved for control by the states.
· “Incidental” regulatory motives could be tolerated, but there was some point “in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty, which the characteristics of legislation and punishment.”
Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935) – the Supreme Court held that the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 [NIRA] was an excessive delegation of the legislative power to the executive because it did not set any standards for when the President should exercise his discretionary power to prohibit shipment of these products.
Did we ever get a ruling on the appeal against Iowa child support recovery?
Supported videos include:
Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!