19 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2024It reasoned that “[w]hile the business records exception to the hearsay rule allows the admission of a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, it does not authorize hearsay testimony concerning the contents of business records which have not been admitted into evidence.” Id. at 247 (quoting Thompson v. State, 705 So. 2d 1046, 1048 (Fla. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2020After what the court concluded to be a searching colloquy with Mr. Alexander on more than one occasion during the course of these proceedings, and in which the court repeated several important considerations to Mr. Alexander, the court concluded that his waiver of counsel and decision to represent himself was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. 1 “Standby counsel is a type of advisory counsel[] and serves two main purposes: (1) “to act as a safety net to ensure that the litigant receives a fair hearing of his claims,” and (2) “to allow the trial to proceed without the undue delays likely to ar | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Judith Renae Uttergreen1 sentence2018See State v. Utter , 803 N.W.2d 647 , 651 (Iowa 2011). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Windersgreen1 sentence2015In a subsequent opinion, 6 State v. Winders, 359 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa 1984), the court concluded an instruction specifying that a presumption could be “rebutted by the Defendant” failed to pass constitutional muster because the jury could read the language as impermissibly shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
William L. Burkhalter v. Steven P. Burkhaltergreen1 sentence2014See Burkhalter, 841 N.W.2d at 105 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence1997Similarly, in State v. Johnson, 318 N.W.2d 417, 430 (Iowa 1982), this court concluded that an inquiry regarding the need or advisability of speaking with an attorney is not an invocation of the right to counsel. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McConnellgreen1 sentence1974In Zbornik and Miller cases there was no preliminary draft whatsoever submitted to counsel where here one instruction was added after the issue was raised in defendant’s argument to the jury. *211 Courts have the duty to instruct juries “ * * * on the law applicable to the facts as disclosed by the evidence, and must so instruct if there is evidence admitted which supports some involved issue. * * [citing authorities].” State v. McConnell, 178 N.W.2d 386, 389 (Iowa 1970). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
MacE v. Amestoy
green
2 sentences2011Id. 2011Id. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
United States v. Gall
green
1 sentence2025Thus, the court concluded rule 2.10(3) was inapplicable because the parties had not agreed “upon a sentence.” Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In the Matter of Dwayne M. Brown
green
1 sentence2024The court concluded that a violation was established and sanction was warranted because “the respondent’s actions produced a work atmosphere tainted with anxiety and stress” and “[t]he evidence also reveal[ed] that some of his employees quit their jobs because of the respondent’s advances.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In the Interest of W.A.Z.R. v. Department of Children & Families
green
1 sentence2024It reasoned that “[w]hile the business records exception to the hearsay rule allows the admission of a memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, it does not authorize hearsay testimony concerning the contents of business records which have not been admitted into evidence.” Id. at 247 (quoting Thompson v. State, 705 So. 2d 1046, 1048 (Fla. Dist. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Rater
green
1 sentence2020After what the court concluded to be a searching colloquy with Mr. Alexander on more than one occasion during the course of these proceedings, and in which the court repeated several important considerations to Mr. Alexander, the court concluded that his waiver of counsel and decision to represent himself was voluntary, knowing and intelligent. 1 “Standby counsel is a type of advisory counsel[] and serves two main purposes: (1) “to act as a safety net to ensure that the litigant receives a fair hearing of his claims,” and (2) “to allow the trial to proceed without the undue delays likely to ar | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Dudden v. Goodman
green
1 sentence2018Id. at 627-28 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State of Iowa v. John David Green
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Timothy L. Merriam, an Individual Justine Merriam, Both Individually and as Next Friend of Christopher Merriam, a Minor, Kayla Merriam, a Minor, and Collin Merriam, a Minor v. Farm Bureau Insurance, a Corporation and/or Farm Bureau Insurance Services, a Corporation and Steven C. Stonehocker, an Individual.
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Sankey v. Richenberger
green
1 sentence2001We confirmed this reading of Wilson in Sankey, 456 N.W.2d at 209 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Wilson v. Nepstad
green
1 sentence2001Rather, the court concluded the doctrine did not bar the plaintiffs suit because the statutes and ordinances in question were not designed to protect the general public, but rather were designed to protect a “special, identifiable group of persons.” Wilson, 282 N.W.2d at 672 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Barefield
green
2 sentences1991Id. at 736-37 , 756 P.2d at 736 . 1991Id. at 736-37 , 756 P.2d at 736 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope
green
2 sentences1991The Court concluded that the requirement of actual notice is not so cumbersome as to unduly *361 hinder “the dispatch with which probate proceedings are conducted.” Id. at 490 , 108 S.Ct. at 1347 , 99 L.Ed.2d at 578-79 . 1991The Court concluded that the requirement of actual notice is not so cumbersome as to unduly *361 hinder “the dispatch with which probate proceedings are conducted.” Id. at 490 , 108 S.Ct. at 1347 , 99 L.Ed.2d at 578-79 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State Ex Rel. Dore v. Superior Court
neutral
2 sentences1986Id. at 426-27 , 18 P.2d at 52-53 . 1986Id. at 426-27 , 18 P.2d at 52-53 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Pride v. Peterson
green
1 sentence1974In Pride, 173 N.W.2d at 554 the court concluded the bar of limitations was primarily an affirmative defense to be specially asserted in a separate division of the responsive pleading to the claim for relief unless from the uncontroverted facts it appeared on the face of the assailed pleading not only that the claim for relief might be barred bút that it was necessarily so barred when the action was commenced. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.