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.
25 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1904–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pipergreen2 sentences2018While the court previously applied an abuse of discretion standard for denial of a spoliation instruction in the context of a discovery sanction, see State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, 335 (Iowa 1979), and for review of the form of the instruction, see State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 915 (Iowa 2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa 2010), the abuse- of-discretion standard of review “does not extend to all refusals to give a requested 4 jury instruction.” Alcala v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699, 707 (Iowa 2016). 2004But see State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 915 (Iowa 2003) (stating “the particular form of an instruction is left to the discretion of the trial court” (emphasis added)). | 1 | 2 |
Strickland v. Iowa Board of Medicinegreen1 sentence2023See Strickland, 764 N.W.2d at 562 (explaining that only the hearing that follows an objection to an order for a clinical competency evaluation is a contested case proceeding); Irland, 2022 WL 610449 , at *2 (finding that an order for a competency evaluation only provides the opportunity to request a contested case proceeding in the form of a hearing). | 1 | 1 |
Receivership of Farmers State Bank v. Bernaugreen1 sentence2023In the case of other agency action, “[p]arties are only entitled to those procedures voluntarily promulgated by the agency, and to the general requirement that the agency act reasonably.” Greenwood Manor, 641 N.W.2d at 834 (citing Farmers State Bank v. Bernau, 433 N.W.2d 734, 740 (Iowa 1988)); accord Hartwig v. Bd. of Nursing, 448 N.W.2d 321, 323 (Iowa 1989) (holding that even an omitted procedural step required by statute or regulation does not give rise to a due process violation without a showing of prejudice). | 1 | 1 |
Hartwig v. Board of Nursinggreen1 sentence2023In the case of other agency action, “[p]arties are only entitled to those procedures voluntarily promulgated by the agency, and to the general requirement that the agency act reasonably.” Greenwood Manor, 641 N.W.2d at 834 (citing Farmers State Bank v. Bernau, 433 N.W.2d 734, 740 (Iowa 1988)); accord Hartwig v. Bd. of Nursing, 448 N.W.2d 321, 323 (Iowa 1989) (holding that even an omitted procedural step required by statute or regulation does not give rise to a due process violation without a showing of prejudice). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Langletgreen1 sentence2018While the court previously applied an abuse of discretion standard for denial of a spoliation instruction in the context of a discovery sanction, see State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, 335 (Iowa 1979), and for review of the form of the instruction, see State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 915 (Iowa 2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa 2010), the abuse- of-discretion standard of review “does not extend to all refusals to give a requested 4 jury instruction.” Alcala v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699, 707 (Iowa 2016). | 1 | 1 |
State Of Iowa Vs. Robert L. Hanesgreen1 sentence2018While the court previously applied an abuse of discretion standard for denial of a spoliation instruction in the context of a discovery sanction, see State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, 335 (Iowa 1979), and for review of the form of the instruction, see State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 915 (Iowa 2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa 2010), the abuse- of-discretion standard of review “does not extend to all refusals to give a requested 4 jury instruction.” Alcala v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699, 707 (Iowa 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Brenda J. Alcala v. Marriott International, Inc. and Courtyard Management Corporation D/B/A Quad Cities Courtyard by Marriottgreen1 sentence2018While the court previously applied an abuse of discretion standard for denial of a spoliation instruction in the context of a discovery sanction, see State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, 335 (Iowa 1979), and for review of the form of the instruction, see State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 915 (Iowa 2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa 2010), the abuse- of-discretion standard of review “does not extend to all refusals to give a requested 4 jury instruction.” Alcala v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699, 707 (Iowa 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Rittscher v. State, Iowa Department of Social Servicesgreen2 sentences2014See Iowa Code §§ 232.67 , .69, .70(3).2 Social workers 1 The court in Rittscher stated the “question is not whether those personnel and the State have a cloak of protection in the form of privilege, but whether the law raises a private damage action in the first place.” 352 N.W.2d at 250 . 2014The court held “[n]ot every claimed negligence creates a civil cause of action.” Id. at 251 . | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Mooregreen2 sentences1988The possibility for inconsistent results when this form of analysis is utilized was discussed in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Moore, 103 Ill.App.3d 250, 255 , 430 N.E.2d 641, 645 , 58 Ill.Dec. 609, 613 (1981): As the lunch was for Moore and her child as well as the children for whom she sat, her activity falls within the exception. 1988The possibility for inconsistent results when this form of analysis is utilized was discussed in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Moore, 103 Ill.App.3d 250, 255 , 430 N.E.2d 641, 645 , 58 Ill.Dec. 609, 613 (1981): As the lunch was for Moore and her child as well as the children for whom she sat, her activity falls within the exception. | 1 | 1 |
First National Bank in Sioux City v. Currangreen1 sentence1987Apart from Count III, which asks for reformation of the policy and was therefore cognizable in equity, see First National Bank in Sioux City v. Curran, 206 N.W.2d 317, 320-21 (Iowa 1973), we find nothing in the record which suggests that separate trial of any single count would be beneficial. | 1 | 1 |
Rosenau Ex Rel. Rosenau v. City of Esthervillegreen2 sentences1985Defendants now argue that because the doctrine embodied in the primary meaning of assumption of risk was not eliminated as a bar to recovery in negligence cases by Rosenau v. City of Estherville, 199 N.W.2d 125, 131 (Iowa 1972) we should apply that doctrine as a bar to plaintiff’s recovery in the present case. 1985Defendants now argue that because the doctrine embodied in the primary meaning of assumption of risk was not eliminated as a bar to recovery in negligence cases by Rosenau v. City of Estherville, 199 N.W.2d 125, 131 (Iowa 1972) we should apply that doctrine as a bar to plaintiff's recovery in the present case. | 1 | 1 |
Madison Silos, Division of Martin Marietta Corp. v. Wassomgreen1 sentence1975Rather defendant then complained of the fact the instruction did not extend the duty therein explained to other plaintiffs whose claims are no longer in dispute. “ * * * [A]n objecting party must point out wherein he contends an instruction is erroneous with such specificity that a trial court be alerted thereto and have opportunity to effect a correction before submission of same to the jury. * * Madison Silos, Div. of Martin Marietta Corp. v. Wassom, 215 N.W.2d 494, 501 (Iowa 1974). | 1 | 1 |
Mrs. Kenneth Baker as Legal Guardian of Kenneth Baker, and Mrs. Kenneth Baker, Individually v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1971See also Baker v. United States, 8 Cir., 343 F.2d 222, 225 ; 40 A.L.R.3d 515 ; 40 Am.Jur.2d, Hospitals and Asylums, section 26, which state the same general rule. 1971See also Baker v. United States, 8 Cir., 343 F.2d 222, 225 ; 40 A.L. | 1 | 1 |
| Bodholdt v. Townsendgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Liddle v. Saltergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pipergreen2 sentences2018While the court previously applied an abuse of discretion standard for denial of a spoliation instruction in the context of a discovery sanction, see State v. Langlet, 283 N.W.2d 330, 335 (Iowa 1979), and for review of the form of the instruction, see State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 915 (Iowa 2003), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa 2010), the abuse- of-discretion standard of review “does not extend to all refusals to give a requested 4 jury instruction.” Alcala v. Marriott Intern., Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699, 707 (Iowa 2016). 2004But see State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 915 (Iowa 2003) (stating “the particular form of an instruction is left to the discretion of the trial court” (emphasis added)). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Andrew Tsanas
green
2 sentences2026As a result, it concluded that the court could give the instruction it prefers if the defendant expresses no preference, but “[i]f he does, the court should give the form of instruction which the defendant seasonably elects” since “[i]t is his liberty that is at stake, and the worst that can happen to the Government under the less rigorous instruction is his readier conviction for a lesser rather than a greater crime.” Id. 2015Therefore, the court concluded that “[t]he court may give the one that it prefers if the defendant expresses no choice,” but if the defendant has a preference, “the court should give the form of instruction which the defendant seasonably elects.” Id. | 3 | 2015–2026 |
Greenwood Manor v. Iowa Department of Public Health, State Health Facilities Council
green
1 sentence2023In the case of other agency action, “[p]arties are only entitled to those procedures voluntarily promulgated by the agency, and to the general requirement that the agency act reasonably.” Greenwood Manor, 641 N.W.2d at 834 (citing Farmers State Bank v. Bernau, 433 N.W.2d 734, 740 (Iowa 1988)); accord Hartwig v. Bd. of Nursing, 448 N.W.2d 321, 323 (Iowa 1989) (holding that even an omitted procedural step required by statute or regulation does not give rise to a due process violation without a showing of prejudice). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
United States v. Grant C. Affleck
green
1 sentence1992For the form of such an instruction, see Affleck, 776 F.2d at 1458 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Barrett
green
1 sentence1992In the present case, the trial court noted the broad reach of federal rules 703 and 705, but it expressed the view that Iowa cases have been more restrictive, citing State v. Barrett, 445 N.W.2d 749 (Iowa 1989). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Dickinson v. Mailliard
green
2 sentences1971This statement of the applicable rule is almost verbatim with the form of instruction used in Bradshaw v. Iowa Methodist Hospital, 251 Iowa 375, 390 , 101 N.W.2d 167, 176 ; Shover v. Iowa Lutheran Hospital, 252 Iowa 706, 712 , 107 N.W.2d 85 , 88 and Dickinson v. Mailliard, Iowa, 175 N.W.2d 588, 595 . 1971This statement of the applicable rule is almost verbatim with the form of instruction used in Bradshaw v. Iowa Methodist Hospital, 251 Iowa 375, 390 , 101 N.W.2d 167, 176 ; Shover v. Iowa Lutheran Hospital, 252 Iowa 706, 712 , 107 N.W.2d 85 , 88 and Dickinson v. Mailliard, Iowa, 175 N. W.2d 588, 595 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Bradshaw v. Iowa Methodist Hospital
green
2 sentences1971This statement of the applicable rule is almost verbatim with the form of instruction used in Bradshaw v. Iowa Methodist Hospital, 251 Iowa 375, 390 , 101 N.W.2d 167, 176 ; Shover v. Iowa Lutheran Hospital, 252 Iowa 706, 712 , 107 N.W.2d 85 , 88 and Dickinson v. Mailliard, Iowa, 175 N.W.2d 588, 595 . 1971This statement of the applicable rule is almost verbatim with the form of instruction used in Bradshaw v. Iowa Methodist Hospital, 251 Iowa 375, 390 , 101 N.W.2d 167, 176 ; Shover v. Iowa Lutheran Hospital, 252 Iowa 706, 712 , 107 N.W.2d 85 , 88 and Dickinson v. Mailliard, Iowa, 175 N.W.2d 588, 595 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Shover v. Iowa Lutheran Hospital
green
2 sentences1971This statement of the applicable rule is almost verbatim with the form of instruction used in Bradshaw v. Iowa Methodist Hospital, 251 Iowa 375, 390 , 101 N.W.2d 167, 176 ; Shover v. Iowa Lutheran Hospital, 252 Iowa 706, 712 , 107 N.W.2d 85 , 88 and Dickinson v. Mailliard, Iowa, 175 N.W.2d 588, 595 . 1971This statement of the applicable rule is almost verbatim with the form of instruction used in Bradshaw v. Iowa Methodist Hospital, 251 Iowa 375, 390 , 101 N.W.2d 167, 176 ; Shover v. Iowa Lutheran Hospital, 252 Iowa 706, 712 , 107 N.W.2d 85 , 88 and Dickinson v. Mailliard, Iowa, 175 N.W.2d 588, 595 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Jennings v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Association
green
2 sentences1969In Jennings v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Association, 260 Iowa 279, 284 , 149 N.W.2d 298, 301 , we said, “The basic distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is that in direct evidence the witnesses testify of their own knowledge as to the ultimate facts to be proved, while circumstantial evidence relates to instances where proof is given of facts and circumstances from which the finder of fact may infer other connected facts which reasonably follow, according to the common experience of mankind.” We believe all of the physical evidence here met this definition as being proof of fa 1969In Jennings v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Association, 260 Iowa 279, 284 , 149 N.W.2d 298, 301 , we said, “The basic distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is that in direct evidence the witnesses testify of their own knowledge as to the ultimate facts to be proved, while circumstantial evidence relates to instances where proof is given of facts and circumstances from which the finder of fact may infer other connected facts which reasonably follow, according to the common experience of mankind.” We believe all of the physical evidence here met this definition as being proof of fa | 1 | 1969–1969 |
In Re Estate of Walton
green
2 sentences1960Harrison v. Harrison, 124 Iowa 525 , 100 N.W. 344 ; Craig v. Estate of Craig, 167 Iowa 340 , 149 N.W. 454 ; Thompson v. Romack, 174 Iowa 155 , 156 N.W. 310 ; Newell v. Estate of Newell, 198 Iowa 710 , 200 N.W. 238 ; Wilson v. Else, 204 Iowa 857 , 216 N.W. 33 ; In re Estate of Walton, 213 Iowa 104 , 238 N.W. 577 ; Shoberg v. Bock, 230 *969 Iowa 832, 298 N.W. 834 ; Maasdam v. Estate of Maasdam, supra. In Newell v. Estate of Newell, supra (page 712 of 198 Iowa), we said: “* * * it is not necessary that a claim in probate be stated with the same fullness and particularity as a petition in an ordin 1960Harrison v. Harrison, 124 Iowa 525 , 100 N.W. 344 ; Craig v. Estate of Craig, 167 Iowa 340 , 149 N.W. 454 ; Thompson v. Romack, 174 Iowa 155 , 156 N.W. 310 ; Newell v. Estate of Newell, 198 Iowa 710 , 200 N.W. 238 ; Wilson v. Else, 204 Iowa 857 , 216 N.W. 33 ; In re Estate of Walton, 213 Iowa 104 , 238 N.W. 577 ; Shoberg v. Bock, 230 *969 Iowa 832, 298 N.W. 834 ; Maasdam v. Estate of Maasdam, supra. In Newell v. Estate of Newell, supra (page 712 of 198 Iowa), we said: “* * * it is not necessary that a claim in probate be stated with the same fullness and particularity as a petition in an ordin | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Wilson v. Else
green
2 sentences1960Harrison v. Harrison, 124 Iowa 525 , 100 N.W. 344 ; Craig v. Estate of Craig, 167 Iowa 340 , 149 N.W. 454 ; Thompson v. Romack, 174 Iowa 155 , 156 N.W. 310 ; Newell v. Estate of Newell, 198 Iowa 710 , 200 N.W. 238 ; Wilson v. Else, 204 Iowa 857 , 216 N.W. 33 ; In re Estate of Walton, 213 Iowa 104 , 238 N.W. 577 ; Shoberg v. Bock, 230 *969 Iowa 832, 298 N.W. 834 ; Maasdam v. Estate of Maasdam, supra. In Newell v. Estate of Newell, supra (page 712 of 198 Iowa), we said: “* * * it is not necessary that a claim in probate be stated with the same fullness and particularity as a petition in an ordin 1960Harrison v. Harrison, 124 Iowa 525 , 100 N.W. 344 ; Craig v. Estate of Craig, 167 Iowa 340 , 149 N.W. 454 ; Thompson v. Romack, 174 Iowa 155 , 156 N.W. 310 ; Newell v. Estate of Newell, 198 Iowa 710 , 200 N.W. 238 ; Wilson v. Else, 204 Iowa 857 , 216 N.W. 33 ; In re Estate of Walton, 213 Iowa 104 , 238 N.W. 577 ; Shoberg v. Bock, 230 *969 Iowa 832, 298 N.W. 834 ; Maasdam v. Estate of Maasdam, supra. In Newell v. Estate of Newell, supra (page 712 of 198 Iowa), we said: “* * * it is not necessary that a claim in probate be stated with the same fullness and particularity as a petition in an ordin | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Shoberg v. Rock
neutral
1 sentence1960Harrison v. Harrison, 124 Iowa 525 , 100 N.W. 344 ; Craig v. Estate of Craig, 167 Iowa 340 , 149 N.W. 454 ; Thompson v. Romack, 174 Iowa 155 , 156 N.W. 310 ; Newell v. Estate of Newell, 198 Iowa 710 , 200 N.W. 238 ; Wilson v. Else, 204 Iowa 857 , 216 N.W. 33 ; In re Estate of Walton, 213 Iowa 104 , 238 N.W. 577 ; Shoberg v. Bock, 230 *969 Iowa 832, 298 N.W. 834 ; Maasdam v. Estate of Maasdam, supra. In Newell v. Estate of Newell, supra (page 712 of 198 Iowa), we said: “* * * it is not necessary that a claim in probate be stated with the same fullness and particularity as a petition in an ordin | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Bowler v. Nagel
green
1 sentence1960Harrison v. Harrison, 124 Iowa 525 , 100 N.W. 344 ; Craig v. Estate of Craig, 167 Iowa 340 , 149 N.W. 454 ; Thompson v. Romack, 174 Iowa 155 , 156 N.W. 310 ; Newell v. Estate of Newell, 198 Iowa 710 , 200 N.W. 238 ; Wilson v. Else, 204 Iowa 857 , 216 N.W. 33 ; In re Estate of Walton, 213 Iowa 104 , 238 N.W. 577 ; Shoberg v. Bock, 230 *969 Iowa 832, 298 N.W. 834 ; Maasdam v. Estate of Maasdam, supra. In Newell v. Estate of Newell, supra (page 712 of 198 Iowa), we said: “* * * it is not necessary that a claim in probate be stated with the same fullness and particularity as a petition in an ordin | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Harrison v. Harrison
green
2 sentences1960Harrison v. Harrison, 124 Iowa 525 , 100 N.W. 344 ; Craig v. Estate of Craig, 167 Iowa 340 , 149 N.W. 454 ; Thompson v. Romack, 174 Iowa 155 , 156 N.W. 310 ; Newell v. Estate of Newell, 198 Iowa 710 , 200 N.W. 238 ; Wilson v. Else, 204 Iowa 857 , 216 N.W. 33 ; In re Estate of Walton, 213 Iowa 104 , 238 N.W. 577 ; Shoberg v. Bock, 230 *969 Iowa 832, 298 N.W. 834 ; Maasdam v. Estate of Maasdam, supra. In Newell v. Estate of Newell, supra (page 712 of 198 Iowa), we said: “* * * it is not necessary that a claim in probate be stated with the same fullness and particularity as a petition in an ordin 1960Harrison v. Harrison, 124 Iowa 525 , 100 N.W. 344 ; Craig v. Estate of Craig, 167 Iowa 340 , 149 N.W. 454 ; Thompson v. Romack, 174 Iowa 155 , 156 N.W. 310 ; Newell v. Estate of Newell, 198 Iowa 710 , 200 N.W. 238 ; Wilson v. Else, 204 Iowa 857 , 216 N.W. 33 ; In re Estate of Walton, 213 Iowa 104 , 238 N.W. 577 ; Shoberg v. Bock, 230 *969 Iowa 832, 298 N.W. 834 ; Maasdam v. Estate of Maasdam, supra. In Newell v. Estate of Newell, supra (page 712 of 198 Iowa), we said: “* * * it is not necessary that a claim in probate be stated with the same fullness and particularity as a petition in an ordin | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Thompson v. Romack
neutral
1 sentence1960Harrison v. Harrison, 124 Iowa 525 , 100 N.W. 344 ; Craig v. Estate of Craig, 167 Iowa 340 , 149 N.W. 454 ; Thompson v. Romack, 174 Iowa 155 , 156 N.W. 310 ; Newell v. Estate of Newell, 198 Iowa 710 , 200 N.W. 238 ; Wilson v. Else, 204 Iowa 857 , 216 N.W. 33 ; In re Estate of Walton, 213 Iowa 104 , 238 N.W. 577 ; Shoberg v. Bock, 230 *969 Iowa 832, 298 N.W. 834 ; Maasdam v. Estate of Maasdam, supra. In Newell v. Estate of Newell, supra (page 712 of 198 Iowa), we said: “* * * it is not necessary that a claim in probate be stated with the same fullness and particularity as a petition in an ordin | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Craig v. Estate of Craig
neutral
1 sentence1960Harrison v. Harrison, 124 Iowa 525 , 100 N.W. 344 ; Craig v. Estate of Craig, 167 Iowa 340 , 149 N.W. 454 ; Thompson v. Romack, 174 Iowa 155 , 156 N.W. 310 ; Newell v. Estate of Newell, 198 Iowa 710 , 200 N.W. 238 ; Wilson v. Else, 204 Iowa 857 , 216 N.W. 33 ; In re Estate of Walton, 213 Iowa 104 , 238 N.W. 577 ; Shoberg v. Bock, 230 *969 Iowa 832, 298 N.W. 834 ; Maasdam v. Estate of Maasdam, supra. In Newell v. Estate of Newell, supra (page 712 of 198 Iowa), we said: “* * * it is not necessary that a claim in probate be stated with the same fullness and particularity as a petition in an ordin | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Newell v. Estate of Newell
green
1 sentence1960Harrison v. Harrison, 124 Iowa 525 , 100 N.W. 344 ; Craig v. Estate of Craig, 167 Iowa 340 , 149 N.W. 454 ; Thompson v. Romack, 174 Iowa 155 , 156 N.W. 310 ; Newell v. Estate of Newell, 198 Iowa 710 , 200 N.W. 238 ; Wilson v. Else, 204 Iowa 857 , 216 N.W. 33 ; In re Estate of Walton, 213 Iowa 104 , 238 N.W. 577 ; Shoberg v. Bock, 230 *969 Iowa 832, 298 N.W. 834 ; Maasdam v. Estate of Maasdam, supra. In Newell v. Estate of Newell, supra (page 712 of 198 Iowa), we said: “* * * it is not necessary that a claim in probate be stated with the same fullness and particularity as a petition in an ordin | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| State v. Thom green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| State v. Brundage neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| State v. Tippett neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Duff
green
2 sentences1957We said in State v. Tippett, 244 Iowa 1350, 1354 , 60 N.W.2d 538 , 540: “The parties agree the general rule for determining whether a witness is an accomplice is whether he could be charged with and convicted of the specific offense”, citing State v. Thom, 236 Iowa 129 , 17 N.W.2d 96 ; State v. Brundage, 200 Iowa 1394 , 206 N.W. 607 ; State v. Duff, 144 Iowa 142 , 122 N.W. 829 , 24 L. 1957We said in State v. Tippett, 244 Iowa 1350, 1354 , 60 N.W.2d 538 , 540: “The parties agree the general rule for determining whether a witness is an accomplice is whether he could be charged with and convicted of the specific offense”, citing State v. Thom, 236 Iowa 129 , 17 N.W.2d 96 ; State v. Brundage, 200 Iowa 1394 , 206 N.W. 607 ; State v. Duff, 144 Iowa 142 , 122 N.W. 829 , 24 L. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| School Township of Seventy-Six of Muscatine County v. Nicholson green | 1 | 1945–1945 |
| Bradley v. Delaware County neutral | 1 | 1945–1945 |
| Brock v. Jones County neutral | 1 | 1945–1945 |
| Oestereich v. Leslie green | 1 | 1934–1934 |
| Ingram v. Wilson green | 1 | 1931–1931 |
| State v. Bell neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| State v. Hayes green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| State v. Luce green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| In re Will of Ames green | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Railway Co. v. State neutral | 1 | 1921–1921 |
| State v. Peirce green | 1 | 1918–1918 |
| State v. Young neutral | 1 | 1913–1913 |
| Hall v. Rankin green | 1 | 1904–1904 |
| Kirsher v. Kirsher green | 1 | 1904–1904 |
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.