demand waiver (Iowa) · Go Syfert
← Iowa issues

demand waiver in Iowa

14 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2026 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.

Followed or applied (10)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Gorhamgreen
iowa · 1973 · cited in 9 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1973–1982
2 sentences

1982This court was confronted with an analogous situation when the demand-waiver rule relating to statutory speedy trial rights was challenged in State v. Gorham, 206 N.W.2d 908 (Iowa 1973).

1982This court was confronted with an analogous situation when the demand-waiver rule relating to statutory speedy trial rights was challenged in State v. Gorham, 206 N.W.2d 908 (Iowa 1973).

29
Berger v. General United Group, Inc.green
iowa · 1978 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026United Grp., Inc., 268 N.W.2d 630, 636 (Iowa 1978).

11
Seaford Funding Ltd. Partnership v. M & M Associates II, L.P.green
delch · 1995 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
2 sentences

1999See id.

1999The court reasoned, however, that the demand requirement, as applied to the facts in *155 Seaford Funding, “fails to promote judicial efficiency at least when there is a single general partner” that is “enveloped in a self-spun web of conflicting interests.” Id.

11
Levine v. Smithgreen
del · 1991 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
1 sentence

1999See Levine v. Smith, 591 A.2d 194, 200 (Del.1991).

11
State v. Taylorgreen
iowa · 1973 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975
1 sentence

1975See Boyle v. Critelli, 230 N.W.2d 495 (Iowa 1975); State v. Taylor, 211 N.W.2d 264, 266 (Iowa 1973); and State v. Kimball, 203 N.W.2d 296 (Iowa 1972).

11
Boyle v. Critelligreen
iowa · 1975 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975
1 sentence

1975See Boyle v. Critelli, 230 N.W.2d 495 (Iowa 1975); State v. Taylor, 211 N.W.2d 264, 266 (Iowa 1973); and State v. Kimball, 203 N.W.2d 296 (Iowa 1972).

11
State v. Nelsongreen
iowa · 1974 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975
1 sentence

1975See State v. Nelson, 222 N.W.2d 445, 447 (Iowa 1974).

11
State v. Petersongreen
iowa · 1971 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975
1 sentence

1975State v. Peterson, 189 N.W.2d 891, 892-894 (Iowa 1971); State v. Allnutt, 261 Iowa 897, 900-905 , 156 N.W.2d 266 (1968).

11
State v. Albertsengreen
iowa · 1975 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1975–1975
1 sentence

1975The controlling principles for the question now presented were explained in State v. Albertsen, 228 N.W.2d 94, 96 (Iowa 1975).

11
Johnson v. New Jerseygreen
scotus · 1966 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973
2 sentences

1973See generally Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966).

1973See generally Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Pines v. District Court green
iowa · 1943
2 sentences

1973Most States have recognized what is loosely referred to as the ‘demand rule’ [demonstrably cited is Pines v. District Court, 233 Iowa 1284 , 10 N.W.2d 574 (1943)], although eight States reject it. 1 It is not clear, however, precisely what is meant by that *911 term. * * * We shall refer to the former approach as the demand-waiver doctrine.

1973Most States have recognized what is loosely referred to as the ‘demand rule’ [demonstrably cited is Pines v. District Court, 233 Iowa 1284 , 10 N.W.2d 574 (1943)], although eight States reject it. 1 It is not clear, however, precisely what is meant by that *911 term. * * * We shall refer to the former approach as the demand-waiver doctrine.

21973–1982
Barker v. Wingo green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

1977When the motion to dismiss for want of speedy trial is grounded upon the constitutional guarantees provided in Amendments 6 and 14 of the federal constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Iowa Constitution, the four-factor balancing test announced in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 , is involved.

1977When the motion to dismiss for want of speedy trial is grounded upon the constitutional guarantees provided in Amendments 6 and 14 of the federal constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Iowa Constitution, the four-factor balancing test announced in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 , is involved.

21973–1977
In Re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions. Joseph B. Kauffman green
ca1 · 1973
1 sentence

1978A refusal should ordinarily have to be secured, but a failure by the directors to act within a reasonable time should suffice to satisfy the demand requirement.” (footnotes omitted) —Comment, Stockholder Derivative Actions, supra, 44 U.Chi.L.Rev. at 172 In the case before us, the demand issue is further complicated.

11978–1978
State v. Kimball green
iowa · 1972
1 sentence

1975See Boyle v. Critelli, 230 N.W.2d 495 (Iowa 1975); State v. Taylor, 211 N.W.2d 264, 266 (Iowa 1973); and State v. Kimball, 203 N.W.2d 296 (Iowa 1972).

11975–1975
State v. Allnutt green
iowa · 1968
2 sentences

1975State v. Peterson, 189 N.W.2d 891, 892-894 (Iowa 1971); State v. Allnutt, 261 Iowa 897, 900-905 , 156 N.W.2d 266 (1968).

1975State v. Peterson, 189 N.W.2d 891, 892-894 (Iowa 1971); State v. Allnutt, 261 Iowa 897, 900-905 , 156 N.W.2d 266 (1968).

11975–1975

Where else courts name it

DE 79 (1982–2026) TX 60 (1958–2025) NY 58 (1876–2026) CA 57 (1899–2025) IL 36 (1882–2024) NC 29 (1918–2026) LA 21 (1901–2025) MD 21 (1973–2025) MA 18 (1973–2025) MI 15 (1930–2018) IA 14 (1973–2026) AL 14 (1880–2011) PA 13 (1924–2025) FL 12 (1915–2022) OK 11 (1913–2026) OH 10 (1885–2017) GA 10 (1907–2025) ID 10 (1998–2026) NJ 9 (1935–2013) DC 9 (1979–2017) CT 8 (1895–2013) MO 8 (1910–2012) MS 8 (1947–2015) NV 7 (2006–2020) NM 7 (1922–1999) IN 7 (1867–2020) TN 7 (1926–2022) SC 6 (1978–2018) KS 6 (1900–1974) HI 6 (1953–2007) OR 5 (1938–2022) VA 5 (1834–2016) WY 5 (1935–2020) MT 4 (1894–1979) CO 4 (1971–2007) ND 4 (1974–2017) AZ 4 (1994–2015) RI 4 (1902–2005) AK 3 (1977–2003) WA 3 (1924–2018) NE 3 (1967–2014) AR 2 (2023–2024) WI 2 (1975–2021) MN 2 (1961–1984) UT 2 (2007–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check