1. “Board” means the Iowa public information board created in section 23.3.
2. “Complainant” means a person who files a complaint with the board.
3. “Complaint” means a written and signed document filed with the board alleging a violation of chapter 21 or 22.
4. “Custodian” means a government body, government official, or government employee designated as the lawful custodian of a government record pursuant to section 22.1.
5. “Government body” means the same as defined in section 22.1.
6. “Governmental body” means the same as defined in section 21.2.
7. “Person” means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, legal representative, trustee, receiver, custodian, government body, or official, employee, agency, or political subdivision of this state.
8. “Respondent” means any agency or other unit of state or local government, custodian, government official, or government employee who is the subject of a complaint. 2012 Acts, ch 1115, §5, 17 \n
Notes of Decisions
Elview Constr. Co. v. North Scott Cmty. Sch. Dist., 373 N.W.2d 138 (Iowa 1985).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to Iowa Code section 23.2 (1983), dealing with public improvement contracts, the board adopted proposed plans and contract forms and set a time for a public hearing on the matter.”
State v. Randle, 603 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 1999).
“Israel, Criminal Procedure § 23.2(c) (1984) (quoting Singer v. United States, 380 U.”
Microware Sys. Corp. v. Apple Comput., Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (S.D. Iowa 2000).
“Thomas McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 23.2, p. 52 n. 1 (2d ed.1984)). Finally, there are six messages from random individuals simply wondering aloud or expressing curiosity over the two marks.”
Husson v. City of Oskaloosa, 37 N.W.2d 310 (Iowa 1949).
· cites it 2× “Thereafter a notice under Code section 23.2 was given indicating a part of the cost of the improvement would be borne by the city.”
— Iowa Code § 23.2(c) — 1 case
State v. Randle, 603 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 1999).
“Israel, Criminal Procedure § 23.2(c) (1984) (quoting Singer v. United States, 380 U.”
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.