Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 602.2106 (2026)

Procedure before supreme court

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. If the commission submits an application to the supreme court to retire, discipline, or remove a judicial officer or to discipline or remove an employee of the judicial branch, the\n\nTue Dec 09 22:00:11 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 602 (74, 2) §602.2106, JUDICIAL BRANCH 22\n\ncommission shall promptly file in the supreme court a transcript of the hearing before the commission. The statutes and rules relative to proceedings in appeals of equity suits apply.

2. The attorney general shall prosecute the proceedings in the supreme court on behalf of the state, and the judicial officer or employee of the judicial branch may defend in person and by counsel.

3. Upon application by the commission, the supreme court may do any of the following:

a. Retire the judicial officer for permanent physical or mental disability which substantially interferes with the performance of judicial duties.

b. Discipline or remove the judicial officer for persistent failure to perform duties, habitual intemperance, willful misconduct in office, conduct which brings judicial office into disrepute, or substantial violation of the canons of judicial ethics. Discipline may include suspension without pay for a definite period of time not to exceed twelve months.

c. Discipline or remove an employee of the judicial branch for conduct which violates the code of ethics prescribed by the supreme court for court employees.

4. If the supreme court finds that the application should be granted in whole or in part, it shall render the decree that it deems appropriate. 83 Acts, ch 186, §3106, 10201; 92 Acts, ch 1228, §34; 98 Acts, ch 1047, §56 Referred to in §602.9207, 602.9208 \n

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: In Re the Inquiry Concerning Gerard, 631 N.W.2d 271 (Iowa 2001).
In Re the Inquiry Concerning Gerard, 631 N.W.2d 271 (Iowa 2001). · cites it 20× “2106(3)(b) ] “[C]onduct which brings the judicial office into disrepute” as contemplated by Iowa Code § 602.2106 (3)(b). CHARGE VI [§ 602.”
In the Matter of Honorable Daniel Lee BLOCK, Associate Juv. Judge of the First Jud. Dist., 816 N.W.2d 362 (Iowa 2012). · cites it 12× “See Iowa Code § 602.2106 . 2 The Commission found the judge violated Canon 1, as well as rule 51:1.”
In Re the Inquiry Concerning Holien, 612 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2000). · cites it 14× “Iowa Code § 602.2106 (1). Under section 602.”
In the Matter of Douglas A. KRULL, Jud. Magistrate, 860 N.W.2d 38 (Iowa 2015). · cites it 6× “at 191 (quoting Iowa Code § 602.2106 (3)(6)). In determining whether a violation occurred and what sanction is appropriate, “we look' to both attorney and judicial disciplinary cases and note that principles in attorney disciplinary matters are generally applicable to judicial…”
In the Matter of Emily Susan DEAN, Dist. Associate Court Judge, 855 N.W.2d 186 (Iowa 2014). · cites it 6× “” Iowa Code § 602.2106 (3)(b). Like the Commission and Judge Dean, we find there is ample evidence to support these charges.”
In Re Inquiry Concerning Stigler, 607 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2000). · cites it 4× “Iowa Code § 602.2106 (1); see In re Carstensen, 316 N.”
In the Matter of Honorable Mary E. HOWES, Dist. Court Judge of the Seventh Jud. Dist., 880 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 2016). · cites it 12× “2d 699 , 701 *189 (Iowa 2000); see also Iowa Code § 602.2106 (1). We review findings and recommendations by the Commission concerning the discipline of a judicial officer de novo.”
In re the Inquiry Concerning McCormick, 639 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 2002). · cites it 4× “The Commission also found both acts violated Iowa Code section 602.2106(3)(b) (2001) (willful misconduct in office and conduct which brings office into disrepute).”
In the Matter of the Inquiry Concerning Joseph SEVCIK, Jud. Magistrate, First Jud. Dist., 877 N.W.2d 707 (Iowa 2016). · cites it 2× “Iowa Code § 602.2106 (3)(b); see also Iowa Const.”
In Re the Inquiry Concerning Weaver, 691 N.W.2d 725 (Iowa 2004). · cites it 2× “2106(3)(&) provides that we may, upon application by the commission, [discipline or remove [a] judicial officer for persistent failure to perform duties, habitual intemperance, willful misconduct in office, conduct which brings judicial office into disrepute, or substantial…”
Amended August 16, 2016 in the Matter of Honorable Mary E. Howes, Dist. Court Judge of the Seventh Jud. Dist.. On Application of the Iowa (Iowa 2016). · cites it 14× “See Iowa Code § 602.2106 (2015). Because we conclude the judge violated the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct, we grant the application for judicial discipline.”
In the Matter of James H. MARTINEK, a Magistrate, 881 N.W.2d 85 (Iowa 2016). · cites it 8× “Iowa Code § 602.2106 (3)(b). At the time the Commission made application to us for discipline on January 15, Martinek was still a magistrate.”
— Iowa Code § 602.2106(1) — 2 cases
In Re Inquiry Concerning Stigler, 607 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2000). “Iowa Code § 602.2106 (1); see In re Carstensen, 316 N.”
In Re the Inquiry Concerning Holien, 612 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2000). “Iowa Code § 602.2106 (1). Under section 602.”
— Iowa Code § 602.2106(3) — 1 case
In Re the Inquiry Concerning Weaver, 691 N.W.2d 725 (Iowa 2004). “2106(3)(&) provides that we may, upon application by the commission, [discipline or remove [a] judicial officer for persistent failure to perform duties, habitual intemperance, willful misconduct in office, conduct which brings judicial office into disrepute, or substantial…”
— Iowa Code § 602.2106(3)(6) — 2 cases
In the Matter of Honorable Daniel Lee BLOCK, Associate Juv. Judge of the First Jud. Dist., 816 N.W.2d 362 (Iowa 2012). “See Iowa Code § 602.2106 . 2 The Commission found the judge violated Canon 1, as well as rule 51:1.”
In the Matter of Honorable Mary E. HOWES, Dist. Court Judge of the Seventh Jud. Dist., 880 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 2016). “2d 699 , 701 *189 (Iowa 2000); see also Iowa Code § 602.2106 (1). We review findings and recommendations by the Commission concerning the discipline of a judicial officer de novo.”
— Iowa Code § 602.2106(3)(a) — 1 case
In Re the Inquiry Concerning Holien, 612 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2000). “Iowa Code § 602.2106 (1). Under section 602.”
— Iowa Code § 602.2106(3)(b) — 5 cases
In Re the Inquiry Concerning Gerard, 631 N.W.2d 271 (Iowa 2001). “2106(3)(b) ] “[C]onduct which brings the judicial office into disrepute” as contemplated by Iowa Code § 602.2106 (3)(b). CHARGE VI [§ 602.”
In Re the Inquiry Concerning Holien, 612 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2000). “Iowa Code § 602.2106 (1). Under section 602.”
In re the Inquiry Concerning McCormick, 639 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 2002). “The Commission also found both acts violated Iowa Code section 602.2106(3)(b) (2001) (willful misconduct in office and conduct which brings office into disrepute).”
In Re Inquiry Concerning Mcmormick, 639 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 2002).
Amended August 16, 2016 in the Matter of Honorable Mary E. Howes, Dist. Court Judge of the Seventh Jud. Dist.. On Application of the Iowa (Iowa 2016). “See Iowa Code § 602.2106 (2015). Because we conclude the judge violated the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct, we grant the application for judicial discipline.”
— Iowa Code § 602.2106(3)(fe) — 1 case
In the Matter of Honorable Daniel Lee BLOCK, Associate Juv. Judge of the First Jud. Dist., 816 N.W.2d 362 (Iowa 2012). “See Iowa Code § 602.2106 . 2 The Commission found the judge violated Canon 1, as well as rule 51:1.”
— Iowa Code § 602.2106(4) — 2 cases
In the Matter of Honorable Mary E. HOWES, Dist. Court Judge of the Seventh Jud. Dist., 880 N.W.2d 184 (Iowa 2016). “2d 699 , 701 *189 (Iowa 2000); see also Iowa Code § 602.2106 (1). We review findings and recommendations by the Commission concerning the discipline of a judicial officer de novo.”
Amended August 16, 2016 in the Matter of Honorable Mary E. Howes, Dist. Court Judge of the Seventh Jud. Dist.. On Application of the Iowa (Iowa 2016). “See Iowa Code § 602.2106 (2015). Because we conclude the judge violated the Iowa Code of Judicial Conduct, we grant the application for judicial discipline.”
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.