19 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1889–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Iowa Coal Mining Co. v. Monroe Countygreen2 sentences2020“Res judicata in the sense of claim preclusion means that further litigation on the claim is barred.” Iowa Coal Mining Co. v. Monroe Cty., 555 N.W.2d 418, 441 (Iowa 1996). 2011See, e.g., Iowa Coal Mining Co. v. Monroe Cnty., 555 N.W.2d 418, 441 (Iowa 1996) (“Res judicata in the sense of claim preclusion means that further litigation on the claim is barred.”). | 3 | 4 |
Bennett v. MC 619, INC.green2 sentences2020“When used in the sense of claim preclusion, res judicata means that further litigation on the claim is barred.” Bennett v. MC # 619, Inc., 586 N.W.2d 512, 516 (Iowa 1998). 2020“When used in the sense of issue preclusion, res judicata means that further litigation on a specific issue is barred.”6 Id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Markusgreen1 sentence2019“Where a citizen informant is involved, a common sense analysis of the totality of the circumstances must be applied to assess the reliability of the information.” State v. Markus, 478 N.W.2d 405, 408 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Bloom v. Steevegreen1 sentence1996Bloom v. Steeve, 165 N.W.2d 825, 827-28 (Iowa 1969). *441 Res judicata in the sense of claim preclusion means that further litigation on-the claim is barred. | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Board of Adjustmentgreen1 sentence1993See, e.g., Dawson v. Cole, 485 So.2d 1164, 1167 (Ala.Civ.App.1986) (ripeness is a generic concept dealing with the related doctrines of exhaustion and finality). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Drakegreen1 sentence1991The reliability of a citizen informant is generally shown “ ‘by the very nature of the circumstances -under which the incrimina *409 ting information became known.’ ” State v. Post, 286 N.W.2d 195, 200 (Iowa 1979) (quoting State v. Drake, 224 N.W.2d 476, 478 (Iowa 1974)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Postgreen1 sentence1991The reliability of a citizen informant is generally shown “ ‘by the very nature of the circumstances -under which the incrimina *409 ting information became known.’ ” State v. Post, 286 N.W.2d 195, 200 (Iowa 1979) (quoting State v. Drake, 224 N.W.2d 476, 478 (Iowa 1974)). | 1 | 1 |
Westway Trading Corp. v. River Terminal Corp.green1 sentence1986In Westway Trading Corp. v. River Terminal Corp., 314 N.W.2d 398, 401 (Iowa 1982), we stated: Res judicata, in the sense of claim preclusion, applies only if the cause of action in the [prior] litigation was the same as the present action. | 1 | 1 |
B & B Asphalt Co. v. T. S. McShane Co.green1 sentence1984McShane Company, Inc., 242 N.W.2d 279, 286 (Iowa 1976). | 1 | 1 |
Independent Order of Foresters v. Scottgreen2 sentences1983We have considered the broader aspects of the business judgment rule in Independent Order of Forresters v. Scott, 223 Iowa 105, 115 , 272 N.W. 68, 74 (1937). 1983We have considered the broader aspects of the business judgment rule in Independent Order of Forresters v. Scott, 223 Iowa 105, 115 , 272 N.W. 68, 74 (1937). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gallowaygreen1 sentence1982Fed.R.Evid. 702 advisory committee note, 56 F.R.D. 183 , 282 (1972); see, e.g., State v. Galloway, 275 N.W.2d 736, 741 (Iowa 1979) (Reynoldson, C. | 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. Niehaus
green
1 sentence1991Where a citizen informant is involved, a common sense analysis of the totality of the circumstances must be applied to assess the reliability of the information. , Niehaus, 452 N.W.2d at 189-90 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Flesher
green
2 sentences1986The Supreme Court of Iowa first recognized the present sense exception, *205 now embodied as Iowa Rule of Evidence 803(1), in State v. Flesher, 286 N.W.2d 215 (Iowa 1979). 1986The Supreme Court of Iowa first recognized the present sense exception, now embodied as Iowa Rule of Evidence 803(1), in State v. Flesher, 286 N.W.2d 215 (Iowa 1979). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Rosenau Ex Rel. Rosenau v. City of Estherville
green
2 sentences1984Id. at 131-33 . 1984Id. at 131-33 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Lindsey v. Washington
green
1 sentence1980Removal of the possibility of a concurrent sentence operates to defendant’s “detriment in the sense that the standard of punishment adopted by the new statute is more onerous than that of the [prior law].” Id. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Coates v. City of Cincinnati
green
2 sentences1976As a result, `men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning'." Coates v. Cincinnati, supra, 402 U.S. at 614 , 91 S.Ct. at 1688 , 29 L.Ed.2d at 217 . 1976As a result, `men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning'." Coates v. Cincinnati, supra, 402 U.S. at 614 , 91 S.Ct. at 1688 , 29 L.Ed.2d at 217 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Escobedo v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1967The ease before us is not factually comparable to, controlled by or violative of the principles announced in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 , 84 S. Ct. 1758 , 12 L. 1967The ease before us is not factually comparable to, controlled by or violative of the principles announced in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 , 84 S. Ct. 1758 , 12 L. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Town v. Bringolf
green
1 sentence1889Town v. Bringolf, 47 Iowa, 133 . | 1 | 1889–1889 |
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.