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.
14 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Eric Wayne Dempsey v. State of Iowagreen2 sentences2016See id. “[W]e avoid second- guessing and hindsight” and “scrutinize each claim in light of the totality of the circumstances.” Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 142 (Iowa 2001). 2016See id. | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Detention of Betsworthgreen2 sentences2008In re Det. of Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d 280, 288 (Iowa 2006); Seering, 701 N.W.2d at 661 . 2008In re Det. of Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d 280, 288 (Iowa 2006); Seering, 701 N.W.2d at 661 . | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Detention of Garrengreen2 sentences2006See In re Detention of Garren, 620 N.W.2d 275, 278 (Iowa 2000). 2006See In re Detention of Garren, 620 N.W.2d 275, 278 (Iowa 2000). | 2 | 2 |
Frederick v. Shormangreen1 sentence2023See Anderson, 368 N.W.2d at 109 (noting the burden to rebut the presumption is on the party who contends the joint account was not equally owned); accord Frederick, 147 N.W.2d at 483–84; Iowa R. | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Iowa Department of Human Servicesgreen1 sentence2023See Anderson, 368 N.W.2d at 109 (noting the burden to rebut the presumption is on the party who contends the joint account was not equally owned); accord Frederick, 147 N.W.2d at 483–84; Iowa R. | 1 | 1 |
Ledezma v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See id. “[W]e avoid second- guessing and hindsight” and “scrutinize each claim in light of the totality of the circumstances.” Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 142 (Iowa 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Meier v. SENECAUT IIIgreen1 sentence2014See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (observing that an issue is preserved for review if it has been raised and decided by the district court). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen2 sentences2006State v. Proctor, 585 N.W.2d 841, 845 (Iowa 1998); State v. Anderson, 209 Iowa 510, 517 , 228 N.W. 353, 356 (Iowa 1929). 2006State v. Proctor, 585 N.W.2d 841, 845 (Iowa 1998); State v. Anderson, 209 Iowa 510, 517 , 228 N.W. 353, 356 (Iowa 1929). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Proctorgreen1 sentence2006State v. Proctor, 585 N.W.2d 841, 845 (Iowa 1998); State v. Anderson, 209 Iowa 510, 517 , 228 N.W. 353, 356 (Iowa 1929). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jeffriesgreen1 sentence2006Because timely objection to jury instructions in criminal proceedings is necessary to preserve alleged error for appellate review, State v. Jeffries, 430 N.W.2d 728, 737 (Iowa 1988), Ondayog argues his counsel breached an essential duty by not objecting to the improper jury instructions at the time of trial. | 1 | 1 |
Kempf v. City of Iowa Citygreen1 sentence2004Kempf v. City of Iowa City, 402 N.W.2d 393, 399 (Iowa 1987); Steinberg-Baum & Co., 247 Iowa at 931-32 , 77 N.W.2d at 20 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Givensgreen2 sentences1993In re Estate of Givens, 254 Iowa 1016, 1022-23 , 119 N.W.2d 191, 195 (1963). 1993In re Estate of Givens, 254 Iowa 1016, 1022-23 , 119 N.W.2d 191, 195 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2014The court starts with a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct was within the “wide range of reasonable professional assistance.” See id. at 689 . “[Clark] has the burden to rebut this presumption with evidence his trial counsel’s 5 The postconviction court addressed Clark’s claim as that of appellate counsel’s “fail[ure] to raise the issue of improper impeachment” and trial counsel’s failure to “call for a mistrial.” Insofar as the postconviction court’s ruling was limited to discussion of Clark’s claim as purely a motion for mistrial issue, the State maintains error is not preserved on Cl 2006Ondayog has the burden to rebut this presumption with evidence his trial counsel’s “representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 , 104 S.Ct. at 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 693 . | 2 | 2006–2014 |
State v. Seering
green
2 sentences2008In re Det. of Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d 280, 288 (Iowa 2006); Seering, 701 N.W.2d at 661 . 2008In re Det. of Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d 280, 288 (Iowa 2006); Seering, 701 N.W.2d at 661 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
In the Interest of S.M.M.
green
2 sentences2007Id. 2007Id. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Steinberg-Baum & Co. v. Dayton Countryman
green
2 sentences2004Kempf v. City of Iowa City, 402 N.W.2d 393, 399 (Iowa 1987); Steinberg-Baum & Co., 247 Iowa at 931-32 , 77 N.W.2d at 20 . 2004Kempf v. City of Iowa City, 402 N.W.2d 393, 399 (Iowa 1987); Steinberg-Baum & Co., 247 Iowa at 931-32 , 77 N.W.2d at 20 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.