Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jeremie J. Cooksey v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided May 17, 2013No. 11–1630Published

1DissentMansfield, Justice

I respectfully dissent and would affirm the district court and the court of appeals.

Iowa Code section 17A.19(4) provides, “The petition for review shall name the agency as respondent.” The word “shall” is normally considered mandatory. See Iowa Code § 4.1(30) (2011). Cooksey’s petition for review did.not name the Employment Appeal Board (EAB) as a respondent. Rather, it named Cooksey’s employer, Cargill Meat Solutions. Ñor did the petition even ask for relief against the EAB. Instead, it requested that “reversal or remand should be entered against the Employer and benefits awarded.” Given the…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Lynn G. Lamasters Vs. State of IowaSupreme Court of Iowa · 2012
  2. DeVoss v. StateSupreme Court of Iowa · 2002
  3. Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGITWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  5. State v. ParedesSupreme Court of Iowa · 2009

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API