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 1963–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Renee Hummel v. Adam B. Smith, Adam Smith, M.D., P.C., and Tri-State Specialists, L.L.P.green1 sentence2026This seems especially appropriate in Iowa, where our legislature has said it is “presumed” that when it enacts a statute, “[t]he entire statute is intended to be effective.” Iowa Code § 4.4 (2); see also Hummel v. Smith, 999 N.W.2d 301 , 306 (Iowa 2023) (applying the presumption against superfluous words). | 1 | 1 |
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Rodney Howard Powellgreen1 sentence2021“While rule 32:1.8(a) does not prohibit business dealings between a lawyer and his or her client, it imposes stringent requirements on such a transaction.” Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Powell, 901 N.W.2d 513, 515 (Iowa 2017) (quoting Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Marks, 814 N.W.2d 532, 538 (Iowa 2012)); see also Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hamer, 915 N.W.2d 302, 322 (Iowa 2018) (recognizing rule 32:1.8 as imposing “harsh and demanding” 17 responsibilities on attorneys and noting the “onerous burden . . . should make such business transactions the exception rath | 1 | 1 |
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Samuel Zachary Marksgreen1 sentence2021“While rule 32:1.8(a) does not prohibit business dealings between a lawyer and his or her client, it imposes stringent requirements on such a transaction.” Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Powell, 901 N.W.2d 513, 515 (Iowa 2017) (quoting Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Marks, 814 N.W.2d 532, 538 (Iowa 2012)); see also Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hamer, 915 N.W.2d 302, 322 (Iowa 2018) (recognizing rule 32:1.8 as imposing “harsh and demanding” 17 responsibilities on attorneys and noting the “onerous burden . . . should make such business transactions the exception rath | 1 | 1 |
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Bd. v. Hamergreen1 sentence2021“While rule 32:1.8(a) does not prohibit business dealings between a lawyer and his or her client, it imposes stringent requirements on such a transaction.” Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Powell, 901 N.W.2d 513, 515 (Iowa 2017) (quoting Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Marks, 814 N.W.2d 532, 538 (Iowa 2012)); see also Iowa Sup. Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Hamer, 915 N.W.2d 302, 322 (Iowa 2018) (recognizing rule 32:1.8 as imposing “harsh and demanding” 17 responsibilities on attorneys and noting the “onerous burden . . . should make such business transactions the exception rath | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of the Estate of Mary Florence Whalen, Michael Whalengreen1 sentence2015See In re Estate of Whalen, 827 N.W.2d 184, 187 (Iowa 2013) (citing Iowa Code § 633.33 (2011)) (“Probate actions are tried in equity, except in specifically delineated circumstances.”).2 III. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Guardianship of Nemergreen1 sentence1988But see, e.g., Nemer, 419 N.W.2d at 583 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
J.D. Ray Anderson v. Iowa District Court for Woodbury County
green
1 sentence2023Ct., 989 N.W.2d 179 , 183 (Iowa 2023) (“[L]egislatures may opt for redundant drafting in relation to previously enacted statutes.” (citation omitted)); but see Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 178 (2012) (writing that “words with no meaning—language with no substantive effect—should be regarded as the exception rather than the rule”). 11 Smith involved a casino patron cheating at blackjack by increasing his “caps” after seeing he had a favorable hand. 2009 WL 3337632 , at *1. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Youngs v. Fort
green
2 sentences1963Youngs v. Fort, 252 Iowa 939, 947 , 109 N.W.2d 230, 234 . 1963Youngs v. Fort, 252 Iowa 939, 947 , 109 N.W.2d 230, 234 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.