Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mftari v. Stategreen1 sentence2022Many courts do this directly with no requirement of error 21 preservation for sufficiency challenges.2 Other courts do this indirectly under a plain error or manifest injustice standard.3 And all federal circuit courts do this 2See, e.g., McCullough, 298 P.3d at 865 ; McCoy, 442 P.3d at 387 ; Adams, 623 A.2d at 45 n.3; Garza v. State, 670 S.E.2d 73 , 79 n.7 (Ga. 2008) (“Because due process requires the existence of sufficient evidence as to every element of the crime of which a defendant is convicted, the fact that this issue was not explicitly raised does not prevent us from addressing (nor, | 1 | 1 |
People v. Woodsgreen1 sentence2022Many courts do this directly with no requirement of error 21 preservation for sufficiency challenges.2 Other courts do this indirectly under a plain error or manifest injustice standard.3 And all federal circuit courts do this 2See, e.g., McCullough, 298 P.3d at 865 ; McCoy, 442 P.3d at 387 ; Adams, 623 A.2d at 45 n.3; Garza v. State, 670 S.E.2d 73 , 79 n.7 (Ga. 2008) (“Because due process requires the existence of sufficient evidence as to every element of the crime of which a defendant is convicted, the fact that this issue was not explicitly raised does not prevent us from addressing (nor, | 1 | 1 |
In re Freedgreen1 sentence2022Many courts do this directly with no requirement of error 21 preservation for sufficiency challenges.2 Other courts do this indirectly under a plain error or manifest injustice standard.3 And all federal circuit courts do this 2See, e.g., McCullough, 298 P.3d at 865 ; McCoy, 442 P.3d at 387 ; Adams, 623 A.2d at 45 n.3; Garza v. State, 670 S.E.2d 73 , 79 n.7 (Ga. 2008) (“Because due process requires the existence of sufficient evidence as to every element of the crime of which a defendant is convicted, the fact that this issue was not explicitly raised does not prevent us from addressing (nor, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Milnergreen1 sentence2016See State v. Milner, 571 N.W.2d 7, 12 (Iowa 1997) (noting the defendant preserved his challenge to the constitutionality of the statute when he raised it “at the earliest available opportunity”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chrismangreen2 sentences2013Similarly, in State v. Chrisman, 514 N.W.2d 57, 60 (Iowa 1994), we held a defendant preserved error when he challenged only the seizure of tennis shoes and not the search that led to their discovery. 2013Similarly, in State v. Chrisman, 514 N.W.2d 57, 60 (Iowa 1994), we held a defendant preserved error when he challenged only the seizure of tennis shoes and not the search that led to their discovery. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Iowa v. Dantreon Levon Newman
green
2 sentences2026“On direct appeal from a guilty plea, Iowa’s appellate courts could potentially provide relief where the defendant preserved error for appeal or where the defendant need not preserve error for appeal.” Id. 2022“On direct appeal from a guilty plea, Iowa’s appellate courts could potentially provide relief where the defendant preserved error for appeal or where the defendant need not preserve error for appeal.” Id. | 2 | 2022–2026 |
Garza v. State
green
1 sentence2022Many courts do this directly with no requirement of error 21 preservation for sufficiency challenges.2 Other courts do this indirectly under a plain error or manifest injustice standard.3 And all federal circuit courts do this 2See, e.g., McCullough, 298 P.3d at 865 ; McCoy, 442 P.3d at 387 ; Adams, 623 A.2d at 45 n.3; Garza v. State, 670 S.E.2d 73 , 79 n.7 (Ga. 2008) (“Because due process requires the existence of sufficient evidence as to every element of the crime of which a defendant is convicted, the fact that this issue was not explicitly raised does not prevent us from addressing (nor, | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. McCullough
green
1 sentence2022Many courts do this directly with no requirement of error 21 preservation for sufficiency challenges.2 Other courts do this indirectly under a plain error or manifest injustice standard.3 And all federal circuit courts do this 2See, e.g., McCullough, 298 P.3d at 865 ; McCoy, 442 P.3d at 387 ; Adams, 623 A.2d at 45 n.3; Garza v. State, 670 S.E.2d 73 , 79 n.7 (Ga. 2008) (“Because due process requires the existence of sufficient evidence as to every element of the crime of which a defendant is convicted, the fact that this issue was not explicitly raised does not prevent us from addressing (nor, | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Faught
green
1 sentence2022Many courts do this directly with no requirement of error 21 preservation for sufficiency challenges.2 Other courts do this indirectly under a plain error or manifest injustice standard.3 And all federal circuit courts do this 2See, e.g., McCullough, 298 P.3d at 865 ; McCoy, 442 P.3d at 387 ; Adams, 623 A.2d at 45 n.3; Garza v. State, 670 S.E.2d 73 , 79 n.7 (Ga. 2008) (“Because due process requires the existence of sufficient evidence as to every element of the crime of which a defendant is convicted, the fact that this issue was not explicitly raised does not prevent us from addressing (nor, | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Adams
green
1 sentence2022Many courts do this directly with no requirement of error 21 preservation for sufficiency challenges.2 Other courts do this indirectly under a plain error or manifest injustice standard.3 And all federal circuit courts do this 2See, e.g., McCullough, 298 P.3d at 865 ; McCoy, 442 P.3d at 387 ; Adams, 623 A.2d at 45 n.3; Garza v. State, 670 S.E.2d 73 , 79 n.7 (Ga. 2008) (“Because due process requires the existence of sufficient evidence as to every element of the crime of which a defendant is convicted, the fact that this issue was not explicitly raised does not prevent us from addressing (nor, | 1 | 2022–2022 |
McCoy v. People
green
1 sentence2022Many courts do this directly with no requirement of error 21 preservation for sufficiency challenges.2 Other courts do this indirectly under a plain error or manifest injustice standard.3 And all federal circuit courts do this 2See, e.g., McCullough, 298 P.3d at 865 ; McCoy, 442 P.3d at 387 ; Adams, 623 A.2d at 45 n.3; Garza v. State, 670 S.E.2d 73 , 79 n.7 (Ga. 2008) (“Because due process requires the existence of sufficient evidence as to every element of the crime of which a defendant is convicted, the fact that this issue was not explicitly raised does not prevent us from addressing (nor, | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Gonzalez v. Hart
green
1 sentence2022Many courts do this directly with no requirement of error 21 preservation for sufficiency challenges.2 Other courts do this indirectly under a plain error or manifest injustice standard.3 And all federal circuit courts do this 2See, e.g., McCullough, 298 P.3d at 865 ; McCoy, 442 P.3d at 387 ; Adams, 623 A.2d at 45 n.3; Garza v. State, 670 S.E.2d 73 , 79 n.7 (Ga. 2008) (“Because due process requires the existence of sufficient evidence as to every element of the crime of which a defendant is convicted, the fact that this issue was not explicitly raised does not prevent us from addressing (nor, | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence2011Id. at 766 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.