26 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2026INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE “The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984). 2026“The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 686 . | 15 | 19 |
Ledezma v. Stategreen1 sentence2026We review counsel’s strategy and tactical decisions to determine whether they were “reasonable under the circumstances.” See Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 143 (Iowa 2001). | 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 v. Kone
green
2 sentences1998“The benchmark for judging any claim for ineffectiveness must be whether counsel’s conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process the procedures cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.” Kone, 557 N.W.2d at 102 . 1998"The benchmark for judging any claim for ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Kone, 557 N.W.2d at 102 . | 5 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Wissing
green
2 sentences1996Id. (a) Preservation of error for appellate review. 1996Id. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
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.