Quote:
Originally Posted by Traveler
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this but after that dig i thought i'd better check out the finer details of the case and opinion.
Turns out this judge himself, 2 hours after his ruling, put a stay on the ruling allowing opponents to appeal it.
He, in the case, but not in his opinion cited when the Iowa Supreme court upheld the ban. Anyway he doesn't seem to think he's bound by a higher court ruling but does that make him a whack? I dunno, maybe he over-stepped his mark? Your thoughts?
Edit: That was specifically asked to OSB, no disrespect to anyone else its just i'm asking him specifically from a legal POV, which is where his expertese lie.
|
I'm going to read the actual opinion if I can find it online. If you can find it please link it and I'll give you my opinion. Reading it may affect my thoughts.
As for the stay, I find it responsible that he gave the stay pending appeal. Trial courts often have to make the initial call in these kinds of cases because they are the judges of the courts where suits must be first filed. Thus, they are the initial reviewing court in such cases.
But, on big legal issues and novel claims of large import, they usually know their cases will be appealed by the loser and that eventually the highest court will need to resolve them. Thus, to avoid having split decisions on a countywide basis that would create an intrastate paradox and encourage forum shopping to the favourable county that furthers it, and to avoid causing the winning and losing parties and any expected piggybackers any time and/or financial prejudice should the decision be reversed on appeal, they will often grant a stay pending final review by a higher court that makes binding decisions for the entire state. This way, everyone in Iowa can hold their horses and await the final decision on appeal and see what the ultimate result will be and act accordingly.
As an example, in 2000, I won a case in Pennsylvania on the county level that required our state Department of Transportation to expunge its records relating to DUI charges where the drivers completed a pretrial first offender programme. The programme promised the applicants that their records would be expunged; however, the Department claimed they could keep their records of it because it said they were not a criminal agency and expungement only pertained to records held by criminal agencies. I claimed that they acted in these cases as arms of the criminal prosecution and courts because the programme actually required their participation in it and that the programme's court rules and statutes at issue, when read together, required them to expunge their records after a set period of time. I won on the county level, but a stay pending appeal was granted because the decision would have required it to start expunging its records in my case and others of similarly situated individuals in the county, and this would be irreversible if it immediately complied and I lost on appeal. I eventually won on appeal in a decision having a binding effect on the whole state, and then the records were expunged. The state legislature eventually clarified the statutory law in my favour by statutorily mandating that the Department expunge the records after a set period of time consistent with the court's decision.