Ritz v. Wapello County Board of Supervisors

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that screening analysis and administrative closure under regulation 3.12, in connection with right-to-sue letter, merely certified that conditions precedent in regulation 3.10(2
• stating that \[w]e have recognized ... a distinction between successful and unsuccessful parties for purposes of error preservation\ (citations omitted)
• stating that “[w]e have recognized . . . a distinction between successful and unsuccessful parties for purposes of error preservation” (citations omitted)
• holding that the district court could consider whether the plaintiff had timely filed her complaint with the ICRC, even though the plaintiff later obtained a right-to-sue letter from the ICRC and the defendant did not seek judicial review of the ICRC’s issuance of that letter
• “Rule [1.904(2)] is directed at unsuccessful parties who intend to challenge the district court’s ruling on issues it did not resolve. A successful party would have no motivation to raise a rule [1.904(2
• “Rule [1.904(2)] is directed at unsuccessful parties who intend to challenge the district court's ruling on issues it did not resolve. A successful party would have no motivation to raise a rule [1.904(2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).