Cluster 2031663
green
· 74 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 37 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
green
In re the Marriage of Mack (2018)
See State v. Green, 680 N.W.2d 370, 376 (Iowa 2004) (finding where the action was dismissed on other grounds, and the district court did not rule on the alternative ground, the alternative ground could not be reviewed on appeal) (citing Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130 , 135–36 (Iowa 1988) (“The district court made no ruling on the merits of the . . . petition or application . . . .
“The district court made no ruling on the merits of the . . . petition or application . . . . We consequently have nothing to review.”
Consider Junkins v. Branstad, where a group of legislators challenged the use of the Governor’s constitutional line-item veto power. 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988) (en banc).
en banc
Consider Junkins v. Branstad, where a group of legislators challenged the use of the Governor’s constitutional line-item veto power. 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988) (en banc).
en banc
To determine whether an appeal is moot, we consider “whether a judgment, if rendered, would have any practical legal effect upon the existing controversy.” Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 133 (Iowa 1988).
green
Marek v. Johnson (2020)
“An issue of fact is ‘material’ only when the dispute is over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit, given the applicable governing law.” Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988).
green
Larry R. Hedlund v. State of Iowa (2019)
Dist., 549 N.W.2d 295, 300 (Iowa 1996) (same); Hike v. Hall, 427 N.W.2d 158, 159 (Iowa 1988) (same); Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988) (en banc) (same); Kapadia v. Preferred Risk Mut.
en banc
green
Heather Hildreth v. City of Des Moines (2016)
The merits of the certiorari proceeding are presented to this court in another appeal, Hildreth v. City of Des Moines, No. 15-0961, and for which an opinion is filed this date. 3 Mootness “refers to cases which no longer present a justiciable controversy because the issues involved have become academic or nonexistent.” Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 133 (Iowa 1988).
green
Kimberly Ann Sallee, Individually and as Next Friend of Lucas Gregory Durkop and Maria Christina Rivera, Matt… (2013)
“An issue is ‘material’ only when the dispute is over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit, given the applicable governing law.” Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988).
green
Figley v. W.S. Industrial (2011)
Our test of mootness is “whether a judgment, if rendered, would have any practical legal effect upon the existing controversy.” Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 133 (Iowa 1988).
green
Stauffer v. Temperle (2010)
“The test is whether a judgment, if rendered, would have any practical legal effect upon the existing controversy.” Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 133 (Iowa 1988); accord Lewis Invs., Inc. v. City of Iowa City, 703 N.W.2d 180, 183 (Iowa 2005).
Rants v. Vilsack, 684 N.W.2d 193, 199 (Iowa 2004). “ ‘We examine the record in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment to determine if movant met his or her burden.’ ” Id. (quoting Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132-33 (Iowa 1988)).
green
Katherine Varnum, Patricia Hyde, Dawn Barbouroske, Jennifer Barbouroske, Jason Morgan, Charles Swaggerty, Dav… (2009)
“An issue of fact is ‘material’ only when the dispute is over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit, given the applicable governing law.” Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988).
green
Varnum v. Brien (2009)
“An issue of fact is ‘material’ only when the dispute is over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit, given the applicable governing law.” Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988).
Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988).
green
Marc A. Wallace, Gregory A. Wells, Shannon Boswell, Mike Murray, Gayle J. Murray, Kathleen L. Gingerich, Trac… (2008)
Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988).
green
James Parish Ii, Individually And As Parent And Next Friend Of James Parish Iii, A Minor Child Vs. Icon Healt… (2006)
Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988).
green
Parish v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. (2006)
Junkins v. Bmnstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988).
Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988).
green
Iowa Grocery Industry Ass'n v. City of Des Moines (2006)
Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988).
green
Bill Grunder's Sons Construction, Inc. v. Ganzer (2004)
We examine the record in a light most favorable to the party opposing ⅛6 motion for summary judgment to determine if movant met his or her burden.” Rants v. Vilsack, 684 N.W.2d 193, 199 (Iowa 2004) (quoting Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132-33 (Iowa 1988)); accord Estate of Harris v. Papa John’s Pizza, 679 N.W.2d 673, 677 (Iowa 2004); Hynes v. Clay County Fair Ass’n, 672 N.W.2d 764, 766 (Iowa 2003).
green
In Re Island Hi-Speed Ferry, LLC. (2004)
E.g., Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 133 (Iowa 1988).
green
Rants v. Vilsack (2004)
Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132-33 (Iowa 1988) [hereinafter Junkins 7] (citations omitted); accord Colton v. Branstad, 372 N.W.2d 184, 187-88 (Iowa 1985); see also Welsh, 470 N.W.2d at 647-48 .
green
Grace Hodgson Trust v. McClannahan (1997)
Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988).
green
Thompson v. City of Des Moines (1997)
Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988).
green
Des Moines Register & Tribune Co. v. Dwyer (1996)
Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 1988).
green
Peterson v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (1989)
Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 136 (Iowa 1988).
green
Martin-Trigona v. Baxter (1989)
Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 133 (Iowa 1988).
green
Ryerson v. First Trust & Savings Bank (1988)
Sanders v. Ghrist, 421 N.W.2d 520, 521 (Iowa 1988); Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 135 (Iowa 1988); First State Bank v. Shirley Ag.
green
Mark Lee Jackson v. State of Iowa (2019)
See Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 135 (Iowa 1988).
green
Ned Chiodo v. the Section 43.24 Panel Consisting Of: Secretary of State Matthew Schultz, Auditor of State Mar… (2014)
See Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130 , 134–35 (Iowa 1988) (noting the importance of a legislative definition of “appropriation bill,” but recognizing “it does not settle the constitutional question”); cf. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 , 89 S. Ct. 1944, 1978 , 23 L.
noting the importance of a legislative definition of “appropriation bill,” but recognizing “it does not settle the constitutional question”
green
Amended August 21, 2014 Ned Chiodo v. The Section 43.24 Panel Consisting of: Secretary of State Matthew Schul… (2014)
See Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130 , 134–35 (Iowa 1988) (noting the importance of a legislative definition of “appropriation bill,” but recognizing “it does not settle the constitutional question”); cf. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 , 89 S. Ct. 1944, 1978 , 23 L.
noting the importance of a legislative definition of “appropriation bill,” but recognizing “it does not settle the constitutional question”
green
State v. Green (2004)
See Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 135-36 (Iowa 1988); Iowar-Illinois Gas & Elec.
green
In re the Estate of Buck (1997)
See Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 133 (Iowa 1988) (defining as moot cases that no longer present a justiciable controversy because issues have become academic or nonexistent and judgment would have no practical legal effect upon existing controversy).
defining as moot cases that no longer present a justiciable controversy because issues have become academic or nonexistent and judgment would have no practical legal effect upon existing controversy
green
Tindal v. Norman (1988)
See Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 135-36 (Iowa 1988); Iowa-Illinois Gas & Elec. v. Iowa State Commerce Comm’n, 347 N.W.2d 423, 427 (Iowa 1984).
green
State of Iowa v. Jerry Lynn Burns (2023)
See, e.g., Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 135 (Iowa 1988) (en banc) (stating a constitutional “determination, notwithstanding the legislative definition, is for the courts”); see also Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) (“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”).
en banc
green
Amended July 30, 2015 Danny Homan, Steven J. Sodders, Jack Hatch, Pat Murphy, and Mark Smith v. Terry Bransta… (2015)
There we emphasized, “[I]t seems probable that the vetoed language, or language calling for the suspension of the operation of some other statute, might be similarly placed in another appropriations bill.” Id.; see also Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 134 (Iowa 1988) (finding a line-item veto case not moot but also disagreeing with the district court’s determination that the public-interest exception did not ap *332 ply); Colton, 372 N.W.2d at 187 (applying the public-i…
finding a line-item veto case not moot but also disagreeing with the district court’s determination that the public-interest exception did not ap *332 ply
green
Danny Homan, Steven J. Sodders, Jack Hatch, Pat Murphy, and Mark Smith v. Terry Branstad, Governor, State of … (2015)
There we emphasized, “[I]t seems probable that the vetoed language, or language calling for the suspension of the operation of some other statute, might 19 be similarly placed in another appropriations bill.” Id.; see also Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130, 134 (Iowa 1988) (finding a line-item veto case not moot but also disagreeing with the district court’s determination that the public-interest exception did not apply); Colton, 372 N.W.2d at 187 (applying the public-impo…
finding a line-item veto case not moot but also disagreeing with the district court’s determination that the public-interest exception did not apply