14 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re CBgreen2 sentences2024See In re J.B., No. 18-0696, 2018 WL 4361058 , at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2018) (“Short-term improvement on the eve of termination is not enough for the child to safely return.”); C.B., 611 N.W.2d at 495 (“[T]he changes in the two or three months before the termination hearing, in light of the preceding eighteen months, are insufficient.”); In re E.M., No. 16-1641, 2016 WL 6903519 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2016) (finding a three-month period of sobriety not enough time to demonstrate a consistent effort). 2020When the State removes a child from a parent’s care, the State has an obligation to “make every reasonable effort to return the child to the child’s home as quickly as possible consistent with the best interests of the child.” In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000). | 2 | 2 |
In the Interest of A.B. & S.B., Minor Children, S.B., Fathergreen2 sentences2014At the close of the hearing, the court deemed the matter “submitted.” Compare with In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 770 (Iowa 2012) (where the juvenile court left the termination record open for submission of a drug test by the father). 2014See Iowa Code § 232.96 (6) ("The circumstances of the making of the report, study, record or other writing or an audiotape or videotape recording, including the maker’s lack of personal knowledge, may be proved to affect its weight.”); In re A.B., 815 N.W.2d 764, 773 (Iowa 2012) (noting that in absence of objection to exhibit it was still "fair for the court of appeals to comment on the limitations of the test report”). 3 . | 2 | 2 |
In the Interest of Longgreen1 sentence2025The family again came to the attention of HHS on March 8, 2024, after HHS received reports the mother and father were using methamphetamine and sexually 1 See In re Long, 313 N.W.2d 473, 477 (Iowa 1981) (finding that a pre-dispositional order for adjudication is not a final order appealable as a matter of right). 3 abusing the children.2 After receiving the allegations, Nikki Pansegrau—a child protective worker with HHS—was tasked with investigating the allegations. | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of G.A.green1 sentence2022Lindsay argues that Thomas’s refusal to take a drug test that he could not manipulate was proof of abandonment: “A healthy, sober parent would not hesitate to provide proof they are not using illegal substances if that’s what they need to do to see their child.” We agree that in some cases it is “fair and reasonable” for the custodial parent to condition visitation on the other parent providing “some proof of being drug free.” See In re G.A., 826 N.W.2d 125, 129 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Sims v. NCI Holding Corp.green2 sentences2019See Sims, 759 N.W.2d at 340 ; see also Iowa Code § 730.5 (15)(a)(1). 2019See Sims, 759 N.W.2d at 340 ; see also Iowa Code § 730.5 (15)(a)(1). 11 We reject Whitman’s claim Casey’s waived some of its rights in the parties’ employer-employee relationship by requesting a drug test. | 1 | 1 |
Dolin v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.green2 sentences2014See, e.g., Dolin, 2014 WL 804458, at *4 (explaining brand “was responsible for” generic’s “design and warning label”); see also Mulcahy, 386 N.W.2d at 70 (explaining liability may attach when actor “was in some way responsible for the particular product that caused the injury”); Lance, 85 A.3d at 453 n.24 (explaining “federal law also imposes post-marketing duties on pharmaceutical companies, including the obligation to ‘ensur[e] that [their] warnings remain adequate as long as the drug is on the market’ ”). 2014See, e.g., Dolin, 2014 WL 804458, at *4 (explaining brand “was responsible for” generic’s “design and warning label”); see also Mulcahy, 386 N.W.2d at 70 (explaining liability may attach when actor “was in some way responsible for the particular product that caused the injury”); Lance, 85 A.3d at 453 n.24 (explaining “federal law also imposes post-marketing duties on pharmaceutical companies, including the obligation to ‘ensure] that [their] warnings remain adequate as long as the drug is on the market’”). | 1 | 1 |
Mulcahy v. Eli Lilly & Co.green2 sentences2014See, e.g., Dolin, 2014 WL 804458, at *4 (explaining brand “was responsible for” generic’s “design and warning label”); see also Mulcahy, 386 N.W.2d at 70 (explaining liability may attach when actor “was in some way responsible for the particular product that caused the injury”); Lance, 85 A.3d at 453 n.24 (explaining “federal law also imposes post-marketing duties on pharmaceutical companies, including the obligation to ‘ensur[e] that [their] warnings remain adequate as long as the drug is on the market’ ”). 2014See, e.g., Dolin, 2014 WL 804458, at *4 (explaining brand “was responsible for” generic’s “design and warning label”); see also Mulcahy, 386 N.W.2d at 70 (explaining liability may attach when actor “was in some way responsible for the particular product that caused the injury”); Lance, 85 A.3d at 453 n.24 (explaining “federal law also imposes post-marketing duties on pharmaceutical companies, including the obligation to ‘ensure] that [their] warnings remain adequate as long as the drug is on the market’”). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritygreen1 sentence1995See Johnson v. WATA, 764 F.Supp. 1568, 1578 (D.C.Cir.1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of A.C. and A.J., Minor Children, J.C., Fathergreen1 sentence2022See In re H.S., No. 19-0154, 2019 WL 1941552 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 1, 2019) (holding court appropriately based temporary removal order on mother’s refusal to take the test requested by the child protection worker); but see In re A.C., 852 N.W.2d 515, 519 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014) (finding no statutory authority to support ex parte pre-adjudication parental drug-testing order). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dennison
green
2 sentences2017Id. at 493–94. 2017Approximately three months later, when the drug test results came back, the defendant was charged with OWL Id. at 493-94 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
In the Interest of J.S. & N.S., Minor Children, A.S., Mother
green
1 sentence2023That case closed within a year, when the mother “tested negative for methamphetamine.” In 2022, the department investigated the family again, upon reports of the mother “using methamphetamines while being a primary caretaker for the child[ren].”2 The mother stated she was not using methamphetamine, but she 1 See In re J.S., 846 N.W.2d 36 , 40–41 (Iowa 2014) (setting forth standard of review) 2 By that time, the mother and H.B.’s father were no longer living together. 3 refused to take a drug test. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Lance v. Wyeth
green
2 sentences2014See, e.g., Dolin, 2014 WL 804458, at *4 (explaining brand “was responsible for” generic’s “design and warning label”); see also Mulcahy, 386 N.W.2d at 70 (explaining liability may attach when actor “was in some way responsible for the particular product that caused the injury”); Lance, 85 A.3d at 453 n.24 (explaining “federal law also imposes post-marketing duties on pharmaceutical companies, including the obligation to ‘ensur[e] that [their] warnings remain adequate as long as the drug is on the market’ ”). 2014See, e.g., Dolin, 2014 WL 804458, at *4 (explaining brand “was responsible for” generic’s “design and warning label”); see also Mulcahy, 386 N.W.2d at 70 (explaining liability may attach when actor “was in some way responsible for the particular product that caused the injury”); Lance, 85 A.3d at 453 n.24 (explaining “federal law also imposes post-marketing duties on pharmaceutical companies, including the obligation to ‘ensure] that [their] warnings remain adequate as long as the drug is on the market’”). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Sanchez
neutral
2 sentences1969State v. Lee (1963), 62 Wash.2d 228 , 382 P.2d 491 ; State v. Sanchez (1962), 13 Utah 2d 307 , 373 P.2d 695 . * * * “From reading the act as a whole, it would seem that the purpose of the act requiring the druggist to keep a record of the sales and to whom made is that an accurate record be kept in order to determine whether the exempt narcotics are being used by an addict or diverted to an unlawful use and false names and addresses being used for that purpose.” In State v. Sanchez, 13 Utah 2d 307 , 373 P.2d 695 , defendant was convicted of obtaining a narcotic drug, paregoric, by fraud and de 1969State v. Lee (1963), 62 Wash.2d 228 , 382 P.2d 491 ; State v. Sanchez (1962), 13 Utah 2d 307 , 373 P.2d 695 . * * * “From reading the act as a whole, it would seem that the purpose of the act requiring the druggist to keep a record of the sales and to whom made is that an accurate record be kept in order to determine whether the exempt narcotics are being used by an addict or diverted to an unlawful use and false names and addresses being used for that purpose.” In State v. Sanchez, 13 Utah 2d 307 , 373 P.2d 695 , defendant was convicted of obtaining a narcotic drug, paregoric, by fraud and de | 1 | 1969–1969 |
State v. Lee
green
2 sentences1969State v. Lee (1963), 62 Wash.2d 228 , 382 P.2d 491 ; State v. Sanchez (1962), 13 Utah 2d 307 , 373 P.2d 695 . * * * “From reading the act as a whole, it would seem that the purpose of the act requiring the druggist to keep a record of the sales and to whom made is that an accurate record be kept in order to determine whether the exempt narcotics are being used by an addict or diverted to an unlawful use and false names and addresses being used for that purpose.” In State v. Sanchez, 13 Utah 2d 307 , 373 P.2d 695 , defendant was convicted of obtaining a narcotic drug, paregoric, by fraud and de 1969State v. Lee (1963), 62 Wash.2d 228 , 382 P.2d 491 ; State v. Sanchez (1962), 13 Utah 2d 307 , 373 P.2d 695 . * * * “From reading the act as a whole, it would seem that the purpose of the act requiring the druggist to keep a record of the sales and to whom made is that an accurate record be kept in order to determine whether the exempt narcotics are being used by an addict or diverted to an unlawful use and false names and addresses being used for that purpose.” In State v. Sanchez, 13 Utah 2d 307 , 373 P.2d 695 , defendant was convicted of obtaining a narcotic drug, paregoric, by fraud and de | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.