core analysis in Iowa

2017See State v. Briggs, 666 N.W.2d 573, 578 (Iowa 2003) (noting while “[o]ur polestar in this analysis is the intent of the framers of our constitution[,]” “[f]irst and foremost, ‘[w]e give the words used by the framers their natural and commonly-understood meaning’ ” (fourth alteration in original) (quoting Howard v. Schildberg Constr.

2017See State v. Briggs, 666 N.W.2d 573, 578 (Iowa 2003) (noting while “[o]ur polestar in this analysis is the intent of the framers of our constitution[,]” “[f]irst and foremost, ‘[w]e give the words used by the framers their natural and commonly-understood meaning’ ” (fourth alteration in original) (quoting Howard v. Schildberg Constr.

2026As we have said, “the text of the constitution is at the core of our analysis and is our primary focus.” State v. Green, 896 N.W.2d 770, 778 (Iowa 2017).

2021As we explained, “[T]he text of the constitution is at the core of our analysis and is our primary focus.” Id. at 778 .

2024See In re D.W., 791 N.W.2d 703, 709 (Iowa 2010).

2021Zoning Bd., 490 N.W.2d 556, 560 (Iowa 1992) (finding the “must” requirement to obtain governmental permits before submitting the special use application was directory as no prejudice occurred because property owner was required to submit the permits prior to commencing the operation); see also Wisdom v. Bd. of Supervisors, 19 N.W.2d 602 , 607–08 (1945) (finding that when “shall” appears and “is not addressed to public officials and no right is destroyed by giving it a directory meaning, it will be so construed”).

2021Zoning Bd., 490 N.W.2d 556, 560 (Iowa 1992) (finding the “must” requirement to obtain governmental permits before submitting the special use application was directory as no prejudice occurred because property owner was required to submit the permits prior to commencing the operation); see also Wisdom v. Bd. of Supervisors, 19 N.W.2d 602 , 607–08 (1945) (finding that when “shall” appears and “is not addressed to public officials and no right is destroyed by giving it a directory meaning, it will be so construed”).

2012The core violation committed by Humphrey was the neglect of a single client matter. 2 Although neglect is' not defined in our rules of professional conduct “it has generally been recognized to involve indifference and a consistent failure to perform those obligations that a lawyer has assumed, or a conscious disregard for the responsibilities a lawyer owes to a client.” Iowa Supreme Ct. Bd. of Prof'l Ethics & Conduct v. Moorman, 683 N.W.2d 549, 551 (Iowa 2004).

2012Neglect goes beyond ordinary negligence and “is a form of professional incompetence that often involves procrastination, such as a lawyer doing little or nothing to advance the interests of a client after agreeing to represent the client.” Id. at 552 .