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.
17 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1916–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Arnevik v. University of Minnesota Board of Regentsgreen1 sentence2018See, e.g ., Arnevik v. Univ. of Minn. Bd. of Regents , 642 N.W.2d 315 , 319 (Iowa 2002). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pepplesgreen1 sentence2017Section 622.9 does not apply “if the communication occurred in the presence and hearing of a third person.” State v. Pepples, 250 N.W.2d 390, 394 (Iowa 1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tobingreen1 sentence1994Tobin, 338 N.W.2d at 881 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of Longgreen1 sentence1990In support of her contention, the mother relied heavily on In re Long, 313 N.W.2d 473, 478 (Iowa 1981) (confrontation clause assumed to apply to CHINA proceedings). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Frederick J. Montelbanogreen1 sentence1983See, e.g., U.S. v. Montelbano, 605 F.2d 56, 58 (2d Cir.1979) (reliable identification, corroborating circumstantial evidence, false exculpatory evidence, prior similar act evidence); U.S. v. Kavanagh, 572 F.2d 9 (1st Cir.1978) (focus on identification during cross-examination, corroborating fingerprint and circumstantial evidence); State v. Bagby, 231 Kan. 176 , 642 P.2d 993 (1982) (reliable identification, corroborative evidence, no defense request for the instruction). | 1 | 1 |
Shepherd v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurancegreen2 sentences1977See Shepherd v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company, 230 Iowa 1304 , 300 N.W. 556 (1941); McCormick on Evidence §§ 80, 82 (Second Ed. 1972). 1977See Shepherd v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company, 230 Iowa 1304 , 300 N.W. 556 (1941); McCormick on Evidence §§ 80, 82 (Second Ed. 1972). | 1 | 1 |
L. A. Shakman & Co. v. Pottergreen1 sentence1916We are not prepared to admit that the court, under the guise of determining some questions which are legitimately before it, can make remarks in the presence and hearing of the jury which would constitute error if contained in an instruction, but because they are not, it must be held the defendant is not prejudiced.” In Shakman v. Potter, 98 Iowa 61, 65, 66 , during a difficulty between counsel over whether the one for plaintiff had correctly read an answer in a deposition, the court remarked, in the presence of the jury: “Upon listening to the reading of the deposition, I have no doubt but wh | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Obrecht v. Cerro Gordo County Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences2008We held the owner’s presence at the hearing was substantial compliance with the ordinance requiring the owner’s signature on the application because “the owner was available to verify his support of the application and to answer any questions.” Id. 2008We held the owner’s presence at the hearing was substantial compliance with the ordinance requiring the owner’s signature on the application because “the owner was available to verify his support of the application and to answer any questions.” Id. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Leonard Jack v. P and A Farms, LTD., D/B/A Crooked Creek Shooting Preserve
green
2 sentences2023The presence requirement was examined in Jack v. P & A Farms, Ltd., 822 N.W.2d 511 (Iowa 2012). 2023After canvassing precedent, including a termination-of-parental-rights opinion, the supreme court declined to “interpret rule 1.971(3) to permit the entry of a default judgment against a party who fails to appear personally for trial when the party’s attorney is present and able to proceed in the party’s absence.” Jack, 822 N.W.2d at 518–19. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Blakeley v. Estate of Shortal
green
2 sentences1986This court did not nullify the presence requirement in Blakeley v. Shortal’s Estate, 236 Iowa 787 , 20 N.W.2d 28 (1945). 1986This court did not nullify the presence requirement in Blakeley v. Shortal’s Estate, 236 Iowa 787 , 20 N.W.2d 28 (1945). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Bagby
green
2 sentences1983See, e.g., U.S. v. Montelbano, 605 F.2d 56, 58 (2d Cir.1979) (reliable identification, corroborating circumstantial evidence, false exculpatory evidence, prior similar act evidence); U.S. v. Kavanagh, 572 F.2d 9 (1st Cir.1978) (focus on identification during cross-examination, corroborating fingerprint and circumstantial evidence); State v. Bagby, 231 Kan. 176 , 642 P.2d 993 (1982) (reliable identification, corroborative evidence, no defense request for the instruction). 1983See, e.g., U.S. v. Montelbano, 605 F.2d 56, 58 (2d Cir.1979) (reliable identification, corroborating circumstantial evidence, false exculpatory evidence, prior similar act evidence); U.S. v. Kavanagh, 572 F.2d 9 (1st Cir.1978) (focus on identification during cross-examination, corroborating fingerprint and circumstantial evidence); State v. Bagby, 231 Kan. 176 , 642 P.2d 993 (1982) (reliable identification, corroborative evidence, no defense request for the instruction). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Marley
green
2 sentences1983Marley, 54 Haw. at 470 , 509 P.2d at 1108 . 1983Marley, 54 Haw. at 470 , 509 P.2d at 1108 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
United States v. Thomas Michael Kavanagh
green
1 sentence1983See, e.g., U.S. v. Montelbano, 605 F.2d 56, 58 (2d Cir.1979) (reliable identification, corroborating circumstantial evidence, false exculpatory evidence, prior similar act evidence); U.S. v. Kavanagh, 572 F.2d 9 (1st Cir.1978) (focus on identification during cross-examination, corroborating fingerprint and circumstantial evidence); State v. Bagby, 231 Kan. 176 , 642 P.2d 993 (1982) (reliable identification, corroborative evidence, no defense request for the instruction). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Gruber
green
1 sentence1981Gruber, 281 N.W.2d at 639 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
McCornack v. Pickerell
green
2 sentences1951However, the motion to set aside verdict and for new trial was overruled, the court pointing out that since the arguments were not reported there was no showing here (as in McCornack v. Pickerell, 225 Iowa 1076 , 283 N.W. 899 , where all the arguments were taken down) that would permit the court to say the language complained of was not fairly responsive to the arguments of defendants’ counsel. 1951However, the motion to set aside verdict and for new trial was overruled, the court pointing out that since the arguments were not reported there was no showing here (as in McCornack v. Pickerell, 225 Iowa 1076 , 283 N.W. 899 , where all the arguments were taken down) that would permit the court to say the language complained of was not fairly responsive to the arguments of defendants’ counsel. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Stutzman v. Peoples Trust & Savings Bank
neutral
2 sentences1941Thus it cannot be that words spoken by husband to wife, or vice versa, in the presence and hearing of one or more third persons, and hence in the very nature of things not to be construed as in any marital sense private or confidential, must be held within the protection of the privilege, although clearly within the letter of the statute.” The foregoing pronouncement appears to have been adhered to by this court in the case of Stutzman v. People’s Trust & Savings Bk., 205 Iowa 379, 381 , 218 N. W. 39 . 1941Thus it cannot be that words spoken by husband to wife, or vice versa, in the presence and hearing of one or more third persons, and hence in the very nature of things not to be construed as in any marital sense private or confidential, must be held within the protection of the privilege, although clearly within the letter of the statute.” The foregoing pronouncement appears to have been adhered to by this court in the case of Stutzman v. People’s Trust & Savings Bk., 205 Iowa 379, 381 , 218 N. W. 39 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
State v. Paden
green
1 sentence1931The defendant Milo Hartman should not be held to have heard any statement made by John Hartman, even if made in his presence, unless you find from the evidence that he did hear and understand them; nor should you find that Milo Hartman knew of the acts or conduct of his father, John Hartman, even though in his presence, unless from the facts or circumstances shown in the evidence you find from the evidence that he knew of such acts and conduct at the time.” In State v. Paden, 199 Iowa 383 , in a case where the defendants were charged with a conspiracy, this court said: “We cannot feel that the | 1 | 1931–1931 |
State v. Lyons
green
1 sentence1931The defendant Milo Hartman should not be held to have heard any statement made by John Hartman, even if made in his presence, unless you find from the evidence that he did hear and understand them; nor should you find that Milo Hartman knew of the acts or conduct of his father, John Hartman, even though in his presence, unless from the facts or circumstances shown in the evidence you find from the evidence that he knew of such acts and conduct at the time.” In State v. Paden, 199 Iowa 383 , in a case where the defendants were charged with a conspiracy, this court said: “We cannot feel that the | 1 | 1931–1931 |
McKee v. Iowa Railway & Light Co.
neutral
1 sentence1931The defendant Milo Hartman should not be held to have heard any statement made by John Hartman, even if made in his presence, unless you find from the evidence that he did hear and understand them; nor should you find that Milo Hartman knew of the acts or conduct of his father, John Hartman, even though in his presence, unless from the facts or circumstances shown in the evidence you find from the evidence that he knew of such acts and conduct at the time.” In State v. Paden, 199 Iowa 383 , in a case where the defendants were charged with a conspiracy, this court said: “We cannot feel that the | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Géigel v. Artau
neutral
1 sentence1928Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Iowa 650 ; Stewart v. Todd, 190 Iowa 283 ; Sparks v. Sparks, 51 Kan. 195 ( 32 Pac. 892 ); Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich. 157 ( 28 N. W. 805 ); Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420 ( 28 N. E. 651 ); Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514 ( 12 Atl. 736 ); Minard v. Stillman, 31 Ore. 164 ( 49 Pac. 976 ); Griffin v. Griiffin, 125 Ill. 430 ( 17 N. E. 782 ). | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Hurlburt v. . Hurlburt
green
2 sentences1928Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Iowa 650 ; Stewart v. Todd, 190 Iowa 283 ; Sparks v. Sparks, 51 Kan. 195 ( 32 Pac. 892 ); Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich. 157 ( 28 N. W. 805 ); Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420 ( 28 N. E. 651 ); Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514 ( 12 Atl. 736 ); Minard v. Stillman, 31 Ore. 164 ( 49 Pac. 976 ); Griffin v. Griiffin, 125 Ill. 430 ( 17 N. E. 782 ). 1928Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Iowa 650 ; Stewart v. Todd, 190 Iowa 283 ; Sparks v. Sparks, 51 Kan. 195 ( 32 Pac. 892 ); Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich. 157 ( 28 N. W. 805 ); Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420 ( 28 N. E. 651 ); Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514 ( 12 Atl. 736 ); Minard v. Stillman, 31 Ore. 164 ( 49 Pac. 976 ); Griffin v. Griiffin, 125 Ill. 430 ( 17 N. E. 782 ). | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Sparks v. Sparks
neutral
1 sentence1928Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Iowa 650 ; Stewart v. Todd, 190 Iowa 283 ; Sparks v. Sparks, 51 Kan. 195 ( 32 Pac. 892 ); Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich. 157 ( 28 N. W. 805 ); Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420 ( 28 N. E. 651 ); Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514 ( 12 Atl. 736 ); Minard v. Stillman, 31 Ore. 164 ( 49 Pac. 976 ); Griffin v. Griiffin, 125 Ill. 430 ( 17 N. E. 782 ). | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Cady v. Walker
neutral
2 sentences1928Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Iowa 650 ; Stewart v. Todd, 190 Iowa 283 ; Sparks v. Sparks, 51 Kan. 195 ( 32 Pac. 892 ); Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich. 157 ( 28 N. W. 805 ); Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420 ( 28 N. E. 651 ); Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514 ( 12 Atl. 736 ); Minard v. Stillman, 31 Ore. 164 ( 49 Pac. 976 ); Griffin v. Griiffin, 125 Ill. 430 ( 17 N. E. 782 ). 1928Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Iowa 650 ; Stewart v. Todd, 190 Iowa 283 ; Sparks v. Sparks, 51 Kan. 195 ( 32 Pac. 892 ); Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich. 157 ( 28 N. W. 805 ); Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420 ( 28 N. E. 651 ); Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514 ( 12 Atl. 736 ); Minard v. Stillman, 31 Ore. 164 ( 49 Pac. 976 ); Griffin v. Griiffin, 125 Ill. 430 ( 17 N. E. 782 ). | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.'s Appeal
green
1 sentence1928Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Iowa 650 ; Stewart v. Todd, 190 Iowa 283 ; Sparks v. Sparks, 51 Kan. 195 ( 32 Pac. 892 ); Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich. 157 ( 28 N. W. 805 ); Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420 ( 28 N. E. 651 ); Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514 ( 12 Atl. 736 ); Minard v. Stillman, 31 Ore. 164 ( 49 Pac. 976 ); Griffin v. Griiffin, 125 Ill. 430 ( 17 N. E. 782 ). | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Griffin v. Griffin
neutral
2 sentences1928Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Iowa 650 ; Stewart v. Todd, 190 Iowa 283 ; Sparks v. Sparks, 51 Kan. 195 ( 32 Pac. 892 ); Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich. 157 ( 28 N. W. 805 ); Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420 ( 28 N. E. 651 ); Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514 ( 12 Atl. 736 ); Minard v. Stillman, 31 Ore. 164 ( 49 Pac. 976 ); Griffin v. Griiffin, 125 Ill. 430 ( 17 N. E. 782 ). 1928Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Iowa 650 ; Stewart v. Todd, 190 Iowa 283 ; Sparks v. Sparks, 51 Kan. 195 ( 32 Pac. 892 ); Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich. 157 ( 28 N. W. 805 ); Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420 ( 28 N. E. 651 ); Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514 ( 12 Atl. 736 ); Minard v. Stillman, 31 Ore. 164 ( 49 Pac. 976 ); Griffin v. Griiffin, 125 Ill. 430 ( 17 N. E. 782 ). | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Minard v. Stillman
green
2 sentences1928Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Iowa 650 ; Stewart v. Todd, 190 Iowa 283 ; Sparks v. Sparks, 51 Kan. 195 ( 32 Pac. 892 ); Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich. 157 ( 28 N. W. 805 ); Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420 ( 28 N. E. 651 ); Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514 ( 12 Atl. 736 ); Minard v. Stillman, 31 Ore. 164 ( 49 Pac. 976 ); Griffin v. Griiffin, 125 Ill. 430 ( 17 N. E. 782 ). 1928Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Iowa 650 ; Stewart v. Todd, 190 Iowa 283 ; Sparks v. Sparks, 51 Kan. 195 ( 32 Pac. 892 ); Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich. 157 ( 28 N. W. 805 ); Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420 ( 28 N. E. 651 ); Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514 ( 12 Atl. 736 ); Minard v. Stillman, 31 Ore. 164 ( 49 Pac. 976 ); Griffin v. Griiffin, 125 Ill. 430 ( 17 N. E. 782 ). | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Mueller v. Batcheler
green
1 sentence1928Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Iowa 650 ; Stewart v. Todd, 190 Iowa 283 ; Sparks v. Sparks, 51 Kan. 195 ( 32 Pac. 892 ); Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich. 157 ( 28 N. W. 805 ); Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420 ( 28 N. E. 651 ); Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514 ( 12 Atl. 736 ); Minard v. Stillman, 31 Ore. 164 ( 49 Pac. 976 ); Griffin v. Griiffin, 125 Ill. 430 ( 17 N. E. 782 ). | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Stewart v. Todd
green
1 sentence1928Mueller v. Batcheler, 131 Iowa 650 ; Stewart v. Todd, 190 Iowa 283 ; Sparks v. Sparks, 51 Kan. 195 ( 32 Pac. 892 ); Cady v. Walker, 62 Mich. 157 ( 28 N. W. 805 ); Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420 ( 28 N. E. 651 ); Goodwin Gas Stove & Meter Co.’s Appeal, 117 Pa. St. 514 ( 12 Atl. 736 ); Minard v. Stillman, 31 Ore. 164 ( 49 Pac. 976 ); Griffin v. Griiffin, 125 Ill. 430 ( 17 N. E. 782 ). | 1 | 1928–1928 |
State v. Philpot
green
1 sentence1916If such a statement had been embodied in the written charge of the court, it would clearly be erroneous; and while it was not contained in the formal instructions, yet its effect, following so closely the reading of the deposition, was just as prejudicial to plaintiff’s case as if it had been. ’ ’ State v. Philpot, 97 Iowa 365 , cited by appellant, presents so extreme a prejudicial remark on part of the trial judge as that the decision cannot rule here, and we cannot see much bearing in the case of In re Will of Knox, 123 Iowa 24 . | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Will of Knox v. Knox
green
1 sentence1916If such a statement had been embodied in the written charge of the court, it would clearly be erroneous; and while it was not contained in the formal instructions, yet its effect, following so closely the reading of the deposition, was just as prejudicial to plaintiff’s case as if it had been. ’ ’ State v. Philpot, 97 Iowa 365 , cited by appellant, presents so extreme a prejudicial remark on part of the trial judge as that the decision cannot rule here, and we cannot see much bearing in the case of In re Will of Knox, 123 Iowa 24 . | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.