Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 19.3 (2026)

Enforcement — venue

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Any person may notify the attorney general of a state entity’s potential violation of section 19.2. The attorney general may bring an action against a state entity for a writ of mandamus to compel the state entity to comply with section 19.2.

2. A student enrolled in a public school, an alumnus of a public school, or an employee of a state entity alleging a violation of section 19.2 may bring a civil action for injunctive relief against the state entity to prohibit the state entity from continuing such violation.

3. An action brought under this section may be brought in any of the following:\n\nTue Dec 09 22:32:30 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 19 (24, 8) 3 DIVERSITY, EQUITY, & INCLUSION ACTIVITIES — PROHIBITION & ENFORCEMENT, §19.3\n\n a. The county in which all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the action occurred.

b. The county in which the principal office of the state entity is located.

c. The county in which the claimant resides, if the claimant is an individual and resides in this state.

d. The county in which a defendant resides, if the defendant is an individual and resides in this state. 2025 Acts, ch 113, §3, 4 NEW section\n\nTue Dec 09 22:32:30 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 19 (24, 8) \n

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1958–1972 · leading case: Twin-State Eng'g & Chem. Co. v. Iowa State High. Comm'n, 197 N.W.2d 575 (Iowa 1972).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Twin-State Eng'g & Chem. Co. v. Iowa State High. Comm'n, 197 N.W.2d 575 (Iowa 1972). · cites it 4× “, section 162, pages 661, 662: "The fundamental reason for the exclusion of evidence of profits lies in the rule of substantive law that the condemnor takes only the real property, not the business located thereon.”

Wilson v. Iowa State High. Comm'n, 90 N.W.2d 161 (Iowa 1958). · cites it 2× “Nichols on Eminent Domain, section 19.3, volume V, pages 222, 233, states: “It is, accordingly, well settled that evidence of the profits of a business conducted upon land taken for the public use is not admissible in proceedings for the determination of compensation which the…”

Johnson Cnty. Broad. Corp. v. Iowa State High. Comm'n, 130 N.W.2d 707 (Iowa 1964). · cites it 2× “The profits of a business do not tend to prove the value of the property upon which it is conducted.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.