District court, Judicial District 3
Shayne L. Mayer
District Court Judge · District 3A
About
Judge Mayer was appointed to the bench in August 2020. She received her undergraduate degree from Briar Cliff University in 2006 and her J.D. from the University of South Dakota School of Law in 2009. Prior to her appointment, Judge Mayer worked in private practice from 2009 to 2012, was the…
Retention votes
| Election | Yes | No | Kept by |
|---|---|---|---|
| November 8, 2022 | 29,118 | 6,669 | 81.4% yes |
What lawyers said
Before each retention vote, the Iowa State Bar Association asks lawyers who’ve appeared before the judge to rate them from 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent), and whether the judge should be kept.3
86% of 53 responding lawyers said to keep the judge (2022).
| Question | 2022 |
|---|---|
| Knowledge and use of the law | 3.60 |
| Sees the facts of a case clearly | 3.87 |
| On time for court | 4.13 |
| Listens to arguments and testimony | 4.16 |
| Runs the courtroom well | 4.20 |
| Temperament and manner | 4.15 |
| Clear, well-written decisions | 3.69 |
| Rules promptly | 3.15 |
| Uses technology to improve the courts | 4.03 |
| Avoids needless personal criticism | 4.41 |
| Decides on the law and facts, not outside pressure | 4.26 |
| Courteous and patient | 4.37 |
| Treats people equally | 4.56 |
| Fair to people without a lawyer | 4.38 |
| Said to keep the judge | 86% |
| Lawyers responding | 53 |
Source: Iowa State Bar Association Judicial Performance Review: 2022 (page 30).
Appeals from this judge’s cases
2 appeals on record; 2 reversed or vacated at least in part.4
- Victoria Abrahamson, Hana Schroeder, Jody Schroeder, Terry Schroeder, Samantha Johnson, Bre Ahna Boggess f/k/a Bre Ahna Payne, Rebecca Bates…AI summary The plaintiffs sued a city and its police officers, but the defendants argued the lawsuit was filed too late under the legal time limit. The court of appeals determined that the plaintiffs did not follow the required two-year deadline and that no exceptions ap…
- Criminal appeal No. 22-0522AI summary The defendant challenged his conviction for child neglect and endangerment, arguing that allowing children to testify via closed-circuit television violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses. The court addressed whether the use of remote video tes…