18 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2022 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
McElroy v. Stategreen2 sentences2022“From the very beginnings of this court, we have guarded the venerable doctrine of stare decisis and required the highest possible showing 78 that a precedent should be overruled before taking such a step.” Brewer-Strong v. HNI Corp., 913 N.W.2d 235, 249 (Iowa 2018) (quoting McElroy v. State, 703 N.W.2d 385, 394 (Iowa 2005)). 2022“From the very beginnings of this court, we have guarded the venerable doctrine of stare decisis and required the highest possible showing 78 that a precedent should be overruled before taking such a step.” Brewer-Strong v. HNI Corp., 913 N.W.2d 235, 249 (Iowa 2018) (quoting McElroy v. State, 703 N.W.2d 385, 394 (Iowa 2005)). | 12 | 12 |
Hildreth v. Tomlinsongreen2 sentences2019“From the very beginnings of this court, we have guarded the venerable doctrine of stare decisis and required the highest possible showing that a precedent should be overruled before taking such a step.” Kiesau v. Bantz, 686 N.W.2d 164 , 180 n.1 (Iowa 2004) (Cady, J., dissenting), overruled by Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699 , 708 & n.3 (Iowa 2016); see Hildreth v. Tomlinson, 2 Greene 360, 361 (Iowa 1849). 2019"From the very beginnings of this court, we have guarded the venerable doctrine of stare decisis and required the highest possible showing that a precedent should be overruled before taking such a step." Kiesau v. Bantz , 686 N.W.2d 164 , 180 n.1 (Iowa 2004) (Cady, J., dissenting), overruled by Alcala v. Marriott Int'l, Inc. , 880 N.W.2d 699 , 708 & n.3 (Iowa 2016) ; see Hildreth v. Tomlinson , 2 Greene 360 , 361 (Iowa 1849). | 6 | 6 |
Kelly Brewer-Strong v. HNI Corporationgreen2 sentences2022“From the very beginnings of this court, we have guarded the venerable doctrine of stare decisis and required the highest possible showing 78 that a precedent should be overruled before taking such a step.” Brewer-Strong v. HNI Corp., 913 N.W.2d 235, 249 (Iowa 2018) (quoting McElroy v. State, 703 N.W.2d 385, 394 (Iowa 2005)). 2022“From the very beginnings of this court, we have guarded the venerable doctrine of stare decisis and required the highest possible showing 78 that a precedent should be overruled before taking such a step.” Brewer-Strong v. HNI Corp., 913 N.W.2d 235, 249 (Iowa 2018) (quoting McElroy v. State, 703 N.W.2d 385, 394 (Iowa 2005)). | 5 | 5 |
State of Iowa v. Iowa District Court for Jones Countygreen2 sentences2021Ct., 902 N.W.2d 811, 817 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted) (first quoting State v. Miller, 841 N.W.2d 583, 586 (Iowa 2014); then quoting McElroy v. State, 703 25The majority self-servingly overstates the alleged incoherence of federal search and seizure precedent. 2021Ct., 902 N.W.2d 811, 817 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted) (first quoting State v. Miller, 841 N.W.2d 583, 586 (Iowa 2014); then quoting McElroy v. State, 703 25The majority self-servingly overstates the alleged incoherence of federal search and seizure precedent. | 4 | 4 |
Kiesau v. Bantzgreen2 sentences2019“From the very beginnings of this court, we have guarded the venerable doctrine of stare decisis and required the highest possible showing that a precedent should be overruled before taking such a step.” Kiesau v. Bantz, 686 N.W.2d 164 , 180 n.1 (Iowa 2004) (Cady, J., dissenting), overruled by Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699 , 708 & n.3 (Iowa 2016); see Hildreth v. Tomlinson, 2 Greene 360, 361 (Iowa 1849). 2019"From the very beginnings of this court, we have guarded the venerable doctrine of stare decisis and required the highest possible showing that a precedent should be overruled before taking such a step." Kiesau v. Bantz , 686 N.W.2d 164 , 180 n.1 (Iowa 2004) (Cady, J., dissenting), overruled by Alcala v. Marriott Int'l, Inc. , 880 N.W.2d 699 , 708 & n.3 (Iowa 2016) ; see Hildreth v. Tomlinson , 2 Greene 360 , 361 (Iowa 1849). | 3 | 10 |
State of Iowa v. David Lee Millergreen2 sentences2021Ct., 902 N.W.2d 811, 817 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted) (first quoting State v. Miller, 841 N.W.2d 583, 586 (Iowa 2014); then quoting McElroy v. State, 703 25The majority self-servingly overstates the alleged incoherence of federal search and seizure precedent. 2021Ct., 902 N.W.2d 811, 817 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted) (first quoting State v. Miller, 841 N.W.2d 583, 586 (Iowa 2014); then quoting McElroy v. State, 703 25The majority self-servingly overstates the alleged incoherence of federal search and seizure precedent. | 3 | 6 |
Amended May 4, 2015 Dylan Book and Karen Book v. Voma Tire Corporation, Hunter Engineering Company, Iowa Tire, Inc., Holt Sales and Service, Inc., SICE, S.p.A. and SICE Automotive Equipment Societa Italiana Costruzioni Elettromeccaniche S.I.C.E.-S.p.A.green2 sentences2019See Brewer-Strong v. HNI Corp., 913 N.W.2d 235, 249 (Iowa 2018) (“From the very beginnings of this court, we have guarded the venerable doctrine of stare decisis and required the highest possible showing that a precedent should be overruled before taking such a step.” (quoting McElroy v. State, 703 N.W.2d 385, 394 (Iowa 2005))); see also Book v. Doublestar Dongfeng Tyre Co., 860 N.W.2d 576, 594 (Iowa 2015) (“Stare decisis alone dictates continued adherence to our precedent absent a compelling reason to change the law.”). 2019See Brewer-Strong v. HNI Corp. , 913 N.W.2d 235 , 249 (Iowa 2018) ("From the very beginnings of this court, we have guarded the venerable doctrine of stare decisis and required the highest possible showing that a precedent should be overruled before taking such a step." (quoting McElroy v. State , 703 N.W.2d 385 , 394 (Iowa 2005) )); see also Book v. Doublestar Dongfeng Tyre Co. , 860 N.W.2d 576 , 594 (Iowa 2015) ("Stare decisis alone dictates continued adherence to our precedent absent a compelling reason to change the law."). | 2 | 2 |
In the Matter of the Estate of Johnny VAJGRT, Deceased, Bill Ernst, Inc., Intervenor-Appellantgreen1 sentence2017Furthermore, [t]he rule of stare decisis “is especially applicable where the construction placed on a statute by previous decisions has been long acquiesced in by the legislature, by its continued use or failure to change the language of the statute so construed . . . .” In re Estate of Vajgrt, 801 N.W.2d 570, 574 (Iowa 2011) (quoting Iowa Dep’t of Transp. v. Soward, 650 N.W.2d 569, 574 (Iowa 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Iowa Department of Transportation v. Sowardgreen1 sentence2017Furthermore, [t]he rule of stare decisis “is especially applicable where the construction placed on a statute by previous decisions has been long acquiesced in by the legislature, by its continued use or failure to change the language of the statute so construed . . . .” In re Estate of Vajgrt, 801 N.W.2d 570, 574 (Iowa 2011) (quoting Iowa Dep’t of Transp. v. Soward, 650 N.W.2d 569, 574 (Iowa 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Westfield Insurance Co.green2 sentences2004See Hildreth v, Tomlinson, 2 Greene 360, 361 (1849) ("To justify us in overruling a deliberate judgment of the supreme court, whether made before or since our state organization, the decision must appear to be palpably erroneous.”); see also Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 857 (Iowa 2001) ("[Ujnder- the doctrine of stare decisis there is a preference for upholding prior decisions of this court.” (citation omitted)); Miller, 606 N.W.2d at 306 (noting holdings should be overruled only "when error is manifest” (citations omitted)); Kersten Co., 207 N.W.2d at 121 (involves “a 2004See Hildreth v. Tomlinson, 2 Greene 360, 361 (1849) ("To justify us in overruling a deliberate judgment of the supreme court, whether made before or since our state organization, the decision must appear to be palpably erroneous."); see also Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 857 (Iowa 2001) ("[U]nder the doctrine of stare decisis there is a preference for upholding prior decisions of this court." (citation omitted)); Miller, 606 N.W.2d at 306 (noting holdings should be overruled only "when error is manifest" (citations omitted)); Kersten Co., 207 N.W.2d at 121 (involves "a | 1 | 1 |
Channon v. United Parcel Service, Inc.green2 sentences2004See Hildreth v, Tomlinson, 2 Greene 360, 361 (1849) ("To justify us in overruling a deliberate judgment of the supreme court, whether made before or since our state organization, the decision must appear to be palpably erroneous.”); see also Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 857 (Iowa 2001) ("[Ujnder- the doctrine of stare decisis there is a preference for upholding prior decisions of this court.” (citation omitted)); Miller, 606 N.W.2d at 306 (noting holdings should be overruled only "when error is manifest” (citations omitted)); Kersten Co., 207 N.W.2d at 121 (involves “a 2004See Hildreth v. Tomlinson, 2 Greene 360, 361 (1849) ("To justify us in overruling a deliberate judgment of the supreme court, whether made before or since our state organization, the decision must appear to be palpably erroneous."); see also Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 857 (Iowa 2001) ("[U]nder the doctrine of stare decisis there is a preference for upholding prior decisions of this court." (citation omitted)); Miller, 606 N.W.2d at 306 (noting holdings should be overruled only "when error is manifest" (citations omitted)); Kersten Co., 207 N.W.2d at 121 (involves "a | 1 | 1 |
Kersten Co., Inc. v. Department of Social Servicesgreen2 sentences2004See Hildreth v, Tomlinson, 2 Greene 360, 361 (1849) ("To justify us in overruling a deliberate judgment of the supreme court, whether made before or since our state organization, the decision must appear to be palpably erroneous.”); see also Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 857 (Iowa 2001) ("[Ujnder- the doctrine of stare decisis there is a preference for upholding prior decisions of this court.” (citation omitted)); Miller, 606 N.W.2d at 306 (noting holdings should be overruled only "when error is manifest” (citations omitted)); Kersten Co., 207 N.W.2d at 121 (involves “a 2004See Hildreth v. Tomlinson, 2 Greene 360, 361 (1849) ("To justify us in overruling a deliberate judgment of the supreme court, whether made before or since our state organization, the decision must appear to be palpably erroneous."); see also Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 857 (Iowa 2001) ("[U]nder the doctrine of stare decisis there is a preference for upholding prior decisions of this court." (citation omitted)); Miller, 606 N.W.2d at 306 (noting holdings should be overruled only "when error is manifest" (citations omitted)); Kersten Co., 207 N.W.2d at 121 (involves "a | 1 | 1 |
Stuart v. Pilgrimgreen2 sentences2004See Hildreth v, Tomlinson, 2 Greene 360, 361 (1849) ("To justify us in overruling a deliberate judgment of the supreme court, whether made before or since our state organization, the decision must appear to be palpably erroneous.”); see also Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 857 (Iowa 2001) ("[Ujnder- the doctrine of stare decisis there is a preference for upholding prior decisions of this court.” (citation omitted)); Miller, 606 N.W.2d at 306 (noting holdings should be overruled only "when error is manifest” (citations omitted)); Kersten Co., 207 N.W.2d at 121 (involves “a 2004See Hildreth v, Tomlinson, 2 Greene 360, 361 (1849) ("To justify us in overruling a deliberate judgment of the supreme court, whether made before or since our state organization, the decision must appear to be palpably erroneous.”); see also Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 857 (Iowa 2001) ("[Ujnder- the doctrine of stare decisis there is a preference for upholding prior decisions of this court.” (citation omitted)); Miller, 606 N.W.2d at 306 (noting holdings should be overruled only "when error is manifest” (citations omitted)); Kersten Co., 207 N.W.2d at 121 (involves “a | 1 | 1 |
Cover v. Craemergreen2 sentences2004See Hildreth v, Tomlinson, 2 Greene 360, 361 (1849) ("To justify us in overruling a deliberate judgment of the supreme court, whether made before or since our state organization, the decision must appear to be palpably erroneous.”); see also Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 857 (Iowa 2001) ("[Ujnder- the doctrine of stare decisis there is a preference for upholding prior decisions of this court.” (citation omitted)); Miller, 606 N.W.2d at 306 (noting holdings should be overruled only "when error is manifest” (citations omitted)); Kersten Co., 207 N.W.2d at 121 (involves “a 2004See Hildreth v, Tomlinson, 2 Greene 360, 361 (1849) ("To justify us in overruling a deliberate judgment of the supreme court, whether made before or since our state organization, the decision must appear to be palpably erroneous.”); see also Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 857 (Iowa 2001) ("[Ujnder- the doctrine of stare decisis there is a preference for upholding prior decisions of this court.” (citation omitted)); Miller, 606 N.W.2d at 306 (noting holdings should be overruled only "when error is manifest” (citations omitted)); Kersten Co., 207 N.W.2d at 121 (involves “a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kiesau v. Bantzgreen2 sentences2019“From the very beginnings of this court, we have guarded the venerable doctrine of stare decisis and required the highest possible showing that a precedent should be overruled before taking such a step.” Kiesau v. Bantz, 686 N.W.2d 164 , 180 n.1 (Iowa 2004) (Cady, J., dissenting), overruled by Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699 , 708 & n.3 (Iowa 2016); see Hildreth v. Tomlinson, 2 Greene 360, 361 (Iowa 1849). 2019"From the very beginnings of this court, we have guarded the venerable doctrine of stare decisis and required the highest possible showing that a precedent should be overruled before taking such a step." Kiesau v. Bantz , 686 N.W.2d 164 , 180 n.1 (Iowa 2004) (Cady, J., dissenting), overruled by Alcala v. Marriott Int'l, Inc. , 880 N.W.2d 699 , 708 & n.3 (Iowa 2016) ; see Hildreth v. Tomlinson , 2 Greene 360 , 361 (Iowa 1849). | 1 | 10 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brenda J. Alcala v. Marriott International, Inc. and Courtyard Management Corporation D/B/A Quad Cities Courtyard by Marriott
green
2 sentences2019“From the very beginnings of this court, we have guarded the venerable doctrine of stare decisis and required the highest possible showing that a precedent should be overruled before taking such a step.” Kiesau v. Bantz, 686 N.W.2d 164 , 180 n.1 (Iowa 2004) (Cady, J., dissenting), overruled by Alcala v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 880 N.W.2d 699 , 708 & n.3 (Iowa 2016); see Hildreth v. Tomlinson, 2 Greene 360, 361 (Iowa 1849). 2019"From the very beginnings of this court, we have guarded the venerable doctrine of stare decisis and required the highest possible showing that a precedent should be overruled before taking such a step." Kiesau v. Bantz , 686 N.W.2d 164 , 180 n.1 (Iowa 2004) (Cady, J., dissenting), overruled by Alcala v. Marriott Int'l, Inc. , 880 N.W.2d 699 , 708 & n.3 (Iowa 2016) ; see Hildreth v. Tomlinson , 2 Greene 360 , 361 (Iowa 1849). | 4 | 2018–2019 |
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.