18 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Orud v. Grothgreen1 sentence2022“When, as here, a defendant makes a motion for judgment on the pleadings prior to answer challenging the sufficiency of the allegations to sustain a claim for relief, the court should view the motion in the same manner as a motion to dismiss under rule 1.421(1)(f).” Orud v. Groth, 652 N.W.2d 447, 450 (Iowa 2002) (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Roger B. Ennenga v. State of Iowagreen1 sentence2019See Ennenga, 812 N.W.2d at 708–09. | 1 | 1 |
Herbst v. Treinengreen2 sentences2012Under our well-established standard for a motion to dismiss under rule 1.421(1)(/), “The motion to dismiss admits ... [the] well-pleaded facts in the petition for the purpose of testing their *609 legal sufficiency.” Herbst v. Treinen, 249 Iowa 695, 699 , 88 N.W.2d 820, 823 (1958); see also Rieff v. Evans, 630 N.W.2d 278, 284 (Iowa 2001). 2012Under our well-established standard for a motion to dismiss under rule 1.421(1)(/), “The motion to dismiss admits ... [the] well-pleaded facts in the petition for the purpose of testing their *609 legal sufficiency.” Herbst v. Treinen, 249 Iowa 695, 699 , 88 N.W.2d 820, 823 (1958); see also Rieff v. Evans, 630 N.W.2d 278, 284 (Iowa 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Rieff v. Evansgreen1 sentence2012Under our well-established standard for a motion to dismiss under rule 1.421(1)(/), “The motion to dismiss admits ... [the] well-pleaded facts in the petition for the purpose of testing their *609 legal sufficiency.” Herbst v. Treinen, 249 Iowa 695, 699 , 88 N.W.2d 820, 823 (1958); see also Rieff v. Evans, 630 N.W.2d 278, 284 (Iowa 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Watson v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See Watson v. State, 294 N.W.2d 555, 556 (Iowa 1980); Hines v. State, 288 N.W.2d 344, 346 (Iowa 1980). | 1 | 1 |
Hines v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See Watson v. State, 294 N.W.2d 555, 556 (Iowa 1980); Hines v. State, 288 N.W.2d 344, 346 (Iowa 1980). | 1 | 1 |
Schmidt v. Wilkinsongreen1 sentence1997Cf Schmidt v. Wilkinson, 340 N.W.2d 282, 284 (Iowa 1983) (stating, in reference to a motion to dismiss under rule 104(b), that dismissal will be upheld where “no state of facts is conceivable under which plaintiff might show a right of recovery”). | 1 | 1 |
Leuchtenmacher v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.green1 sentence1993See Leuchtenmacher, 460 N.W.2d at 861 (motion to dismiss under rule 104(b) may hot be based on facts not alleged in the pleading attacked). | 1 | 1 |
American National Bank v. Siversgreen1 sentence1989American Nat’l v. Sivers, 387 N.W.2d 138, 139 (Iowa 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Bales v. Iowa State Highway Commissiongreen2 sentences1978Bales v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 249 Iowa 57, 62 , 86 N.W.2d 244, 247 (1957). 1978Bales v. Iowa State Highway Commission, 249 Iowa 57, 62 , 86 N.W.2d 244, 247 (1957). | 1 | 1 |
Raley v. Terrillgreen2 sentences1975See Raley v. Terrill, supra, 253 Iowa at 765 , 113 N.W.2d at 736 . 1975See Raley v. Terrill, supra, 253 Iowa at 765 , 113 N.W.2d at 736 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kling v. Landry
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 36–37. 2017Id. at 36–37. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Fuhrmann v. State
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State of Iowa v. Deantay Darelle Williams
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State Of Iowa Vs. Jason Allen Wing
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 246 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Petersen
green
1 sentence1999If the reason for the delay is insufficient the other factors will not avail to avoid dismissal.” Petersen, 288 N.W.2d at 335 . 2 A district court has limited discretion in ruling on a motion to dismiss under rule 27(2)(b). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Bond
green
1 sentence1999Bond, 340 N.W.2d at 279 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 25
green
2 sentences1985The controlling case on this issue is Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 25, 430 U.S. 290 , 97 S.Ct. 1056 , 51 L.Ed.2d 338 (1977). 1985The controlling case on this issue is Farmer v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, Local 25, 430 U.S. 290 , 97 S.Ct. 1056 , 51 L.Ed.2d 338 (1977). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Lakota Consolidated Independent School v. Buffalo Center/Rake Community Schools
green
1 sentence1983Lakota, 334 N.W.2d at 708 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.