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 1 courts 2017–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Martin Shane Moon v. State of Iowagreen2 sentences2025Those claims are that (1) he recently discovered his friend would not testify at trial because his friend was purportedly intimidated by law enforcement and (2) he learned that the victim had been to a counselor around the time of the underlying events that gave rise to Bitzan’s conviction. 3 To benefit from the new-ground-of-fact exception, Bitzan must show he “could not have raised the ground of fact within the limitations period.” See Moon v. State, 911 N.W.2d 137, 143 (Iowa 2018). 2025Those claims are that (1) he recently discovered his friend would not testify at trial because his friend was purportedly intimidated by law enforcement and (2) he learned that the victim had been to a counselor around the time of the underlying events that gave rise to Bitzan’s conviction. 3 To benefit from the new-ground-of-fact exception, Bitzan must show he “could not have raised the ground of fact within the limitations period.” See Moon v. State, 911 N.W.2d 137, 143 (Iowa 2018). | 1 | 2 |
David Palmer Dewberry v. State of Iowagreen1 sentence2021Id. at 77 ; see also Dewberry v. State, 941 N.W.2d 1 , 5 (Iowa 2019). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Smith v. State, 542 N.W.2d 853, 854 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (“[A]n applicant for postconviction relief cannot circumvent the effect of the three-year time bar by merely claiming the ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel.” (citing Wilkins v. State, 522 N.W.2d 822, 824 (Iowa 1994))). | 1 | 1 |
Brady v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2017Baur v. Baur Farms, Inc., 832 N.W.2d 663, 669 (Iowa 2013) (“[W]hen used to obtain a ruling on an issue that the court may have overlooked, or to request the district court enlarge or amend its findings when it fails to comply with rule 1.904(1), the motion [under rule 1.904(2)] is proper and will toll the time for appeal.”). 2 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding prosecutors have a duty to disclose material evidence to the accused upon request) 3 discovered evidence, specifically polygraph-examination reports of two of the State’s witnesses—Charles Gallmeyer and Michael Gallm 2017Baur v. Baur Farms, Inc., 832 N.W.2d 663, 669 (Iowa 2013) (“[W]hen used to obtain a ruling on an issue that the court may have overlooked, or to request the district court enlarge or amend its findings when it fails to comply with rule 1.904(1), the motion [under rule 1.904(2)] is proper and will toll the time for appeal.”). 2 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding prosecutors have a duty to disclose material evidence to the accused upon request) 3 discovered evidence, specifically polygraph-examination reports of two of the State’s witnesses—Charles Gallmeyer and Michael Gallm | 1 | 1 |
John R. Baur v. Baur Farms, Inc. and Robert F. Baurgreen1 sentence2017Baur v. Baur Farms, Inc., 832 N.W.2d 663, 669 (Iowa 2013) (“[W]hen used to obtain a ruling on an issue that the court may have overlooked, or to request the district court enlarge or amend its findings when it fails to comply with rule 1.904(1), the motion [under rule 1.904(2)] is proper and will toll the time for appeal.”). 2 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding prosecutors have a duty to disclose material evidence to the accused upon request) 3 discovered evidence, specifically polygraph-examination reports of two of the State’s witnesses—Charles Gallmeyer and Michael Gallm | 1 | 1 |
Wilkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Smith v. State, 542 N.W.2d 853, 854 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (“[A]n applicant for postconviction relief cannot circumvent the effect of the three-year time bar by merely claiming the ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel.” (citing Wilkins v. State, 522 N.W.2d 822, 824 (Iowa 1994))). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jerimiah Quinn v. State of Iowa
green
2 sentences2024“The new-ground-of-fact analysis is a component of a claim of actual innocence based upon alleged newly discovered evidence found after the three-year limitations period, and the ground-of-fact exception only overcomes the statute of limitations if it could not have been raised within the limitations period.” Quinn v. State, 954 N.W.2d 75 , 77 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020). 2021The new-ground-of-fact analysis is a component of a claim of actual innocence based upon alleged newly discovered evidence found after the three-year limitations period, and the ground-of-fact exception only overcomes the statute of limitations if it could not have been raised within the limitations period. 954 N.W.2d 75 , 76–77 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (internal citations omitted). | 2 | 2021–2024 |
Harrington v. State
green
1 sentence2017To establish the exception to the three-year statute of limitations, Raymond “must show the alleged ground of fact could not have been raised earlier” and “must show the ground of fact is relevant to the challenged conviction.” Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509 , 520–21 (Iowa 2003). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.