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 1967–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tejedagreen2 sentences2021“The rationale behind the exception is that statements made under the stress of excitement are less likely to involve deception than if made upon reflection or deliberation.” State v. Tejeda, 677 N.W.2d 744, 753 (Iowa 2004). 2021Evid. 5.803(2); State v. Tejeda, 677 N.W.2d 744, 753 (Iowa 2004) (“The rationale behind the exception is that statements made under the stress of excitement are less likely to involve deception than if made upon reflection or deliberation.”). | 9 | 9 |
State v. Harpergreen2 sentences2020“The rationale behind the exception is that statements made under the stress of excitement are less likely to involve deception than if made upon reflection or deliberation.” State v. Harper, 770 N.W.2d 316, 319 (Iowa 2009) (citation omitted). 2014Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.803(2) provides an exception to the hearsay rule for an excited utterance: “A statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” “The rationale behind the exception is that statements made under the stress of excitement are less likely to involve deception than if made upon reflection or deliberation.” State v. Harper, 770 N.W.2d 316, 319 (Iowa 2009) (quoting State v. Tejeda, 677 N.W.2d 744, 753 (Iowa 2004)). | 5 | 5 |
State v. Atwoodgreen2 sentences2019State v. Harper, 770 N.W.2d 316, 319 (Iowa 2009) (quoting State v. Atwood, 602 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Iowa 1999)). 2014Application of the excited utterance exception “lies largely within the discretion of the trial court.” State v. Atwood, 602 N.W.2d 775, 782 (Iowa 1999). | 3 | 3 |
Smith v. Smithway Motor Xpress, Inc.green2 sentences2009See Smith, 464 N.W.2d at 687 . 2009See Smith, 464 N.W.2d at 687 . 34 Although the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy has been recognized in Iowa for over twenty years, this case is the first time we have specifically recognized a cause of action for wrongful discharge arising from the refusal of the employee to violate administrative rules. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Estate of Spraguegreen1 sentence2025See Sprague, 57 N.W.2d at 216 (“She knew that she had acquired an undivided interest 1 The language in Newbury partially overruling In re Will of Miller reads, “For reasons heretofore stated we agree with that observation and In re Will of Miller . . . is accordingly overruled insofar as inconsistent with this opinion.” Newbury, 182 N.W.2d at 151 . | 1 | 1 |
Newbury v. McCammantgreen1 sentence2025See Sprague, 57 N.W.2d at 216 (“She knew that she had acquired an undivided interest 1 The language in Newbury partially overruling In re Will of Miller reads, “For reasons heretofore stated we agree with that observation and In re Will of Miller . . . is accordingly overruled insofar as inconsistent with this opinion.” Newbury, 182 N.W.2d at 151 . | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Trent D. Smithgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Smith, 876 N.W.2d 180, 185 (Iowa 2016). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Marriage of Coopergreen2 sentences1998In re Marriage of Cooper, 451 N.W.2d 507, 509 (Iowa App.1989). 1998In re Marriage of Cooper, 451 N.W.2d 507, 509 (Iowa App.1989). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Snydergreen1 sentence1998See id. | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Montgomery Ward & Co.green2 sentences1983The supreme court in Devore v. Schaffer, 245 Iowa 1017 , 65 N.W.2d 553, 555 (1954) discussed the rationale behind the exception as follows: [I]t is clearly explained that the rule permitting a doctor to testify as to the history of the case is an exception to the hearsay rule based on “a probability that the patient will not falsify in statements made to his physician at a time when he is expecting and hoping to receive from him medical aid and benefit.” [quoting Mitchell v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 226 Iowa 956 , 285 N.W. 187, 188 (1939) ] It is clear that, in this instance, the degree of relia 1983The supreme court in Devore v. Schaffer, 245 Iowa 1017 , 65 N.W.2d 553, 555 (1954) discussed the rationale behind the exception as follows: [I]t is clearly explained that the rule permitting a doctor to testify as to the history of the case is an exception to the hearsay rule based on “a probability that the patient will not falsify in statements made to his physician at a time when he is expecting and hoping to receive from him medical aid and benefit.” [quoting Mitchell v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 226 Iowa 956 , 285 N.W. 187, 188 (1939) ] It is clear that, in this instance, the degree of relia | 1 | 1 |
Devore v. Schaffergreen2 sentences1983The supreme court in Devore v. Schaffer, 245 Iowa 1017 , 65 N.W.2d 553, 555 (1954) discussed the rationale behind the exception as follows: [I]t is clearly explained that the rule permitting a doctor to testify as to the history of the case is an exception to the hearsay rule based on “a probability that the patient will not falsify in statements made to his physician at a time when he is expecting and hoping to receive from him medical aid and benefit.” [quoting Mitchell v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 226 Iowa 956 , 285 N.W. 187, 188 (1939) ] It is clear that, in this instance, the degree of relia 1983The supreme court in Devore v. Schaffer, 245 Iowa 1017 , 65 N.W.2d 553, 555 (1954) discussed the rationale behind the exception as follows: [I]t is clearly explained that the rule permitting a doctor to testify as to the history of the case is an exception to the hearsay rule based on “a probability that the patient will not falsify in statements made to his physician at a time when he is expecting and hoping to receive from him medical aid and benefit.” [quoting Mitchell v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 226 Iowa 956 , 285 N.W. 187, 188 (1939) ] It is clear that, in this instance, the degree of relia | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 774 . 2017Id. at 774 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Charles Furnald v. Anthony Hughes and Emcasco Insurance Company
green
1 sentence2019He also cites us to Furnald v. Hughes, 804 N.W.2d 273 (Iowa 2011), but that case also only discusses section 614.10. 31 The statute specifically limits its application to the “commencement of an action.” Iowa Code § 614.10 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State of Iowa v. Arzel Jones
green
1 sentence2014The rationale behind this rule is, first, to protect the defendant’s right to be present for all applicable criminal proceedings, and second, to assure the trial court is “keenly alive to a sense of [its] responsibility and to the importance of [its] functions.” Id. at 18 (quoting United States v. Canady, 126 F.3d 352 , 361–62 (2d Cir. 1997)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Marcus Canady
green
1 sentence2014The rationale behind this rule is, first, to protect the defendant’s right to be present for all applicable criminal proceedings, and second, to assure the trial court is “keenly alive to a sense of [its] responsibility and to the importance of [its] functions.” Id. at 18 (quoting United States v. Canady, 126 F.3d 352 , 361–62 (2d Cir. 1997)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Good v. Crouch
green
1 sentence1999Id. at 760 ; Sutherland § 23.10, at 353. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Bratton v. Bond
green
1 sentence1989Bratton, 408 N.W.2d at 45 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Wangen v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1984Shahrokhfar, 634 P.2d at 658 ; Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis.2d at 276 , 294 N.W.2d at 446 n. 7. 1984Shahrokhfar, 634 P.2d at 658 ; Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis.2d at 276 , 294 N.W.2d at 446 n. 7. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Shahrokhfar v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences1984Shahrokhfar, 634 P.2d at 658 ; Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis.2d at 276 , 294 N.W.2d at 446 n. 7. 1984Shahrokhfar, 634 P.2d at 658 ; Wangen v. Ford Motor Co., 97 Wis.2d at 276 , 294 N.W.2d at 446 n. 7. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Reynolds v. Sims
green
2 sentences1967Finally, in Reynolds v. Sims (1964), supra, 377 U. S. 533 , 84 S. Ct. 1362 , 12 L. 1967Finally, in Reynolds v. Sims (1964), supra, 377 U. S. 533 , 84 S. Ct. 1362 , 12 L. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.