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.
18 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1899–2025 5 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. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2024We agree with the district court that such evidence would have opened the door to questions from the prosecution that would comment on Collins’s right to counsel. “[O]pening the door” . . . pertains to the ability of a party to rebut inadmissible evidence offered by an adversary and provides that “one who induces a trial court to let down the bars to a field of inquiry 4 that is not competent or relevant to the issues cannot complain if his adversary is also allowed to avail himself of the opening.” State v. Parker, 747 N.W.2d 196, 206 (Iowa 2008) (quoting State v. Mitchell, 670 N.W.2d 416, 42 2024We agree with the district court that such evidence would have opened the door to questions from the prosecution that would comment on Collins’s right to counsel. “[O]pening the door” . . . pertains to the ability of a party to rebut inadmissible evidence offered by an adversary and provides that “one who induces a trial court to let down the bars to a field of inquiry 4 that is not competent or relevant to the issues cannot complain if his adversary is also allowed to avail himself of the opening.” State v. Parker, 747 N.W.2d 196, 206 (Iowa 2008) (quoting State v. Mitchell, 670 N.W.2d 416, 42 | 4 | 4 |
State v. Parkergreen2 sentences2024This rule pertains to the ability of a party to rebut inadmissible evidence offered by an adversary and provides that “one who induces a trial court to let down the bars to a field of inquiry that is not competent or relevant to the issues cannot complain if his adversary is also allowed to avail himself of the opening.” State v. Parker, 747 N.W.2d 196, 206 (Iowa 2008) (quoting State v. Mitchell, 670 N.W.2d 416, 420 (Iowa 2003)). 2024We agree with the district court that such evidence would have opened the door to questions from the prosecution that would comment on Collins’s right to counsel. “[O]pening the door” . . . pertains to the ability of a party to rebut inadmissible evidence offered by an adversary and provides that “one who induces a trial court to let down the bars to a field of inquiry 4 that is not competent or relevant to the issues cannot complain if his adversary is also allowed to avail himself of the opening.” State v. Parker, 747 N.W.2d 196, 206 (Iowa 2008) (quoting State v. Mitchell, 670 N.W.2d 416, 42 | 3 | 4 |
State v. Paytongreen2 sentences2003Strong, et al., McCormick on Evidence § 57, at 253 (5th ed. 1999) (quoting Warren Live Stock Co. v. Farr, 142 F. 116, 117 (8th Cir.1905)); see also State v. Spilger, 508 N.W.2d 650, 652 (Iowa 1993); State v. Payton, 481 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Iowa 1992); State v. Finnigan, 478 N.W.2d 630, 631-32 (Iowa 1991); State v. Jones, 471 N.W.2d 833, 835-36 (Iowa 1991); State v. Williams, 195 Iowa 785, 796-98 , 192 N.W. 901 , 906-07 (1923). 1993State v. Payton, 481 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Iowa 1992) (“rule is well settled that one who induces the trial court to ‘let down the bars’ to a field of inquiry cannot complain if an adversary takes advantage of the same opening”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Oldfathergreen1 sentence2025DCI Laboratory testing later confirmed the field test results. 6 interpretation—whether the terms of the statute are broad enough to cover the actions of the accused, see State v. Oldfather, 306 N.W.2d 760, 763 (Iowa 1981)— our review is for errors at law. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hagberggreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., People v. Hagberg, 733 N.E.2d 1271, 1273 (Ill. 2000) (noting evidence is insufficient when “the officer testified that the field test could show only that the substance ‘might be’ narcotics” (citing People v. Judkins, 192 N.E.2d 848 (Ill. 1963))); but see id. (“[T]his court has never held that a field test is insufficient to identify the substance as a narcotic simply because the test was a field test.”). | 1 | 1 |
The PEOPLE v. Judkinsgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., People v. Hagberg, 733 N.E.2d 1271, 1273 (Ill. 2000) (noting evidence is insufficient when “the officer testified that the field test could show only that the substance ‘might be’ narcotics” (citing People v. Judkins, 192 N.E.2d 848 (Ill. 1963))); but see id. (“[T]his court has never held that a field test is insufficient to identify the substance as a narcotic simply because the test was a field test.”). 2018See, e.g., People v. Hagberg, 733 N.E.2d 1271, 1273 (Ill. 2000) (noting evidence is insufficient when “the officer testified that the field test could show only that the substance ‘might be’ narcotics” (citing People v. Judkins, 192 N.E.2d 848 (Ill. 1963))); but see id. (“[T]his court has never held that a field test is insufficient to identify the substance as a narcotic simply because the test was a field test.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Finnigangreen1 sentence2003Strong, et al., McCormick on Evidence § 57, at 253 (5th ed. 1999) (quoting Warren Live Stock Co. v. Farr, 142 F. 116, 117 (8th Cir.1905)); see also State v. Spilger, 508 N.W.2d 650, 652 (Iowa 1993); State v. Payton, 481 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Iowa 1992); State v. Finnigan, 478 N.W.2d 630, 631-32 (Iowa 1991); State v. Jones, 471 N.W.2d 833, 835-36 (Iowa 1991); State v. Williams, 195 Iowa 785, 796-98 , 192 N.W. 901 , 906-07 (1923). | 1 | 1 |
Warren Live Stock Co. v. Farrgreen1 sentence2003Strong, et al., McCormick on Evidence § 57, at 253 (5th ed. 1999) (quoting Warren Live Stock Co. v. Farr, 142 F. 116, 117 (8th Cir.1905)); see also State v. Spilger, 508 N.W.2d 650, 652 (Iowa 1993); State v. Payton, 481 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Iowa 1992); State v. Finnigan, 478 N.W.2d 630, 631-32 (Iowa 1991); State v. Jones, 471 N.W.2d 833, 835-36 (Iowa 1991); State v. Williams, 195 Iowa 785, 796-98 , 192 N.W. 901 , 906-07 (1923). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Spilgergreen1 sentence2003Strong, et al., McCormick on Evidence § 57, at 253 (5th ed. 1999) (quoting Warren Live Stock Co. v. Farr, 142 F. 116, 117 (8th Cir.1905)); see also State v. Spilger, 508 N.W.2d 650, 652 (Iowa 1993); State v. Payton, 481 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Iowa 1992); State v. Finnigan, 478 N.W.2d 630, 631-32 (Iowa 1991); State v. Jones, 471 N.W.2d 833, 835-36 (Iowa 1991); State v. Williams, 195 Iowa 785, 796-98 , 192 N.W. 901 , 906-07 (1923). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2003Strong, et al., McCormick on Evidence § 57, at 253 (5th ed. 1999) (quoting Warren Live Stock Co. v. Farr, 142 F. 116, 117 (8th Cir.1905)); see also State v. Spilger, 508 N.W.2d 650, 652 (Iowa 1993); State v. Payton, 481 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Iowa 1992); State v. Finnigan, 478 N.W.2d 630, 631-32 (Iowa 1991); State v. Jones, 471 N.W.2d 833, 835-36 (Iowa 1991); State v. Williams, 195 Iowa 785, 796-98 , 192 N.W. 901 , 906-07 (1923). | 1 | 1 |
Spaulding v. Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway Co.green1 sentence1899See Spaulding v. Railway Co., 98 Iowa, 205 , and cases cited; 2 Enc. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
The PEOPLE v. Judkinsgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., People v. Hagberg, 733 N.E.2d 1271, 1273 (Ill. 2000) (noting evidence is insufficient when “the officer testified that the field test could show only that the substance ‘might be’ narcotics” (citing People v. Judkins, 192 N.E.2d 848 (Ill. 1963))); but see id. (“[T]his court has never held that a field test is insufficient to identify the substance as a narcotic simply because the test was a field test.”). 2018See, e.g., People v. Hagberg, 733 N.E.2d 1271, 1273 (Ill. 2000) (noting evidence is insufficient when “the officer testified that the field test could show only that the substance ‘might be’ narcotics” (citing People v. Judkins, 192 N.E.2d 848 (Ill. 1963))); but see id. (“[T]his court has never held that a field test is insufficient to identify the substance as a narcotic simply because the test was a field test.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Iowa v. Robin Eugene Brubaker
green
1 sentence2025And she suggests that the 11 substance could have been “legal hemp, which is virtually impossible to distinguish from marijuana through visual inspection.” To support her argument, Randel cites State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164 (Iowa 2011), abrogated on other grounds by Crawford, 972 N.W.2d at 197–98. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. Jacobsen
green
1 sentence2014The Court also found the field test was not a search as the action did not infringe “any constitutionally protected privacy interest that had not already been frustrated as the result of private conduct.” Id. at 126 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2003Strong, et al., McCormick on Evidence § 57, at 253 (5th ed. 1999) (quoting Warren Live Stock Co. v. Farr, 142 F. 116, 117 (8th Cir.1905)); see also State v. Spilger, 508 N.W.2d 650, 652 (Iowa 1993); State v. Payton, 481 N.W.2d 325, 328 (Iowa 1992); State v. Finnigan, 478 N.W.2d 630, 631-32 (Iowa 1991); State v. Jones, 471 N.W.2d 833, 835-36 (Iowa 1991); State v. Williams, 195 Iowa 785, 796-98 , 192 N.W. 901 , 906-07 (1923). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
McGrath v. Burkhard
green
2 sentences1983They alleged the duties were unreasonable because “in the nature of police work, unprofessional, and foreign to the field of instruction.” They argued they had no training for the duties and the assignment was “degrading, humiliating and unprofessional.” Id. at 374-75 , 280 P.2d at 869-70 . 1983They alleged the duties were unreasonable because “in the nature of police work, unprofessional, and foreign to the field of instruction.” They argued they had no training for the duties and the assignment was “degrading, humiliating and unprofessional.” Id. at 374-75 , 280 P.2d at 869-70 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Johnson
neutral
2 sentences1970State v. Johnson (1968), Iowa, 155 N.W.2d 512, 515-516 , and citations. 1970State v. Johnson (1968), Iowa, 155 N.W.2d 512, 515-516 , and citations. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
State v. Desmond
green
1 sentence1927In support of its contention, the State relies upon the following authorities’: State v. Desmond, 109 Iowa 72 ; State v. Sheets, 127 Iowa 73 ; and State v. O’Connell, 144 Iowa 559 . | 1 | 1927–1927 |
State v. Sheets
neutral
1 sentence1927In support of its contention, the State relies upon the following authorities’: State v. Desmond, 109 Iowa 72 ; State v. Sheets, 127 Iowa 73 ; and State v. O’Connell, 144 Iowa 559 . | 1 | 1927–1927 |
State v. Vance
green
1 sentence1927The scope of the exception is stated in State v. Vance, 119 Iowa 685 . | 1 | 1927–1927 |
State v. O'Connell
green
1 sentence1927In support of its contention, the State relies upon the following authorities’: State v. Desmond, 109 Iowa 72 ; State v. Sheets, 127 Iowa 73 ; and State v. O’Connell, 144 Iowa 559 . | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Westcott v. Meeker
green
1 sentence1912The question was fully examined in the late case of Westcott v. Meeker, 144 Iowa, 311 , and we there held, following the Massachusetts court, that: The rule for the' construction of wills followed by courts in recent times is to ascertain the intent of the tes tator from the whole instrument, attributing due weight to all its language, and then give effect to that intent unless prevented by some positive rule of law, rather than to try to make the interpretation of particular words or phrases in one instrument square with that before given to somewhat similar words used by some one else under | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Ware Cattle Co. v. Anderson & Co.
neutral
1 sentence1903Ware Co. v. Anderson, 107 Iowa, 231 , and authorities cited. | 1 | 1903–1903 |
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.