14 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kirby v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2016Id. at 689–90, 92 S. Ct. at 1882–83, 32 L. 2016Id. at 689–90, 92 S. Ct. at 1882–83, 32 L. | 1 | 3 |
Ballinger v. Democrat Co.green1 sentence2024The court explained the privilege embraces the liberty to republish “everything that occurs publicly in open court” so long as the republication was “made in good faith and solely for public information, and without actual malice.” Id. (cleaned up); see also Ballinger v. Democrat Co., 212 N.W. 557, 559 (Iowa 1927) (following Flues but holding privilege did not apply when republication “did not fairly report” the proceeding); Hulbert v. New Nonpareil Co., 82 N.W. 928, 929 (Iowa 1900) (holding that while republication of judicial proceeding was privileged, additional false statement added by def | 1 | 1 |
Hulbert v. New Nonpareil Co.green1 sentence2024The court explained the privilege embraces the liberty to republish “everything that occurs publicly in open court” so long as the republication was “made in good faith and solely for public information, and without actual malice.” Id. (cleaned up); see also Ballinger v. Democrat Co., 212 N.W. 557, 559 (Iowa 1927) (following Flues but holding privilege did not apply when republication “did not fairly report” the proceeding); Hulbert v. New Nonpareil Co., 82 N.W. 928, 929 (Iowa 1900) (holding that while republication of judicial proceeding was privileged, additional false statement added by def | 1 | 1 |
Caniglia v. Stromgreen1 sentence2022In Caniglia v. Strom, the Court explained that exception was not a “standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home.” 141 S. Ct. 1596, 1599 (2021). | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2016Id. at 689-90 , 92 S.Ct. at 1882-83 , 32 L.Ed.2d at 417-18 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted) (citations omitted) (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 382-83 , 88 S.Ct; 967, 970, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1252 (1968)); In United States v. Ash, the Court considered whether a postindictment photographic lineup shown to four witnesses was a critical stage in the prosecution. 413 U.S. 300, 300-01 , 93 S.Ct. 2568, 2569 , 37 L.Ed,2d 619, 621 (1973). 2016Id. at 689-90 , 92 S.Ct. at 1882-83 , 32 L.Ed.2d at 417-18 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted) (citations omitted) (quoting Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 382-83 , 88 S.Ct; 967, 970, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247, 1252 (1968)); In United States v. Ash, the Court considered whether a postindictment photographic lineup shown to four witnesses was a critical stage in the prosecution. 413 U.S. 300, 300-01 , 93 S.Ct. 2568, 2569 , 37 L.Ed,2d 619, 621 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2018The court explained that this standard meant a challenger had no obligation to show the law imposed an “undue burden or significant restriction.” Id. at 1255 . 2018The court explained that this standard meant a challenger had no obligation to show the law imposed an "undue burden or significant restriction." Id. at 1255 . | 3 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Ash
green
2 sentences1973Less than a year after Wade (U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 ) and Gilbert (Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 ) were decided, the Court explained the rule of those decisions as follows: ‘The rationale of those cases was that an accused is entitled to counsel at any “critical stage of the prosecution", and that a post-indictment lineup is such a “critical stage”.’ (citations) We decline to depart from that rationale today by imposing a per se exclusionary rule upon testimony concerning an identification that took place long before 1973Less than a year after Wade (U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 ) and Gilbert (Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 ) were decided, the Court explained the rule of those decisions as follows: ‘The rationale of those cases was that an accused is entitled to counsel at any “critical stage of the prosecution", and that a post-indictment lineup is such a “critical stage”.’ (citations) We decline to depart from that rationale today by imposing a per se exclusionary rule upon testimony concerning an identification that took place long before | 2 | 1973–2016 |
Flues v. New Nonpareil Co.
green
1 sentence2024The court explained the privilege embraces the liberty to republish “everything that occurs publicly in open court” so long as the republication was “made in good faith and solely for public information, and without actual malice.” Id. (cleaned up); see also Ballinger v. Democrat Co., 212 N.W. 557, 559 (Iowa 1927) (following Flues but holding privilege did not apply when republication “did not fairly report” the proceeding); Hulbert v. New Nonpareil Co., 82 N.W. 928, 929 (Iowa 1900) (holding that while republication of judicial proceeding was privileged, additional false statement added by def | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Delano
green
1 sentence2018The court explained no violation could be found when neither defense counsel “nor defendant objected to the [presentence] report or made any 14 effort to refute any part of it.” Id. at 71 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State of Iowa v. Aki Malik Ross
green
1 sentence2017Ross, 845 N.W.2d at 705 . 12 These factors are (1) the time interval occurring between the successive actions of the defendant, (2) the place of the actions, (3) the identity of the victims, (4) the existence of an intervening act, (5) the similarity of defendant’s actions, and (6) defendant’s intent at the time of his actions. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.
green
2 sentences2005The Court explained that this test is really one concerned with due process and therefore “has no proper place in our takings jurisprudence.” Id. at -, 125 S.Ct. at 2083 , 161 L.Ed.2d at-. 2005The Court explained that this test is really one concerned with due process and therefore “has no proper place in our takings jurisprudence.” Id. at -, 125 S.Ct. at 2083 , 161 L.Ed.2d at-. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.
green
1 sentence1996The Court explained that this exception to the standing requirement applied only where a statute’s deterrent effect on legitimate expression was “real and substantial.” Id. at 60 , 96 S.Ct. at 2447, 49 L.Ed.2d at 320. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
McCarthy v. United States
green
2 sentences1976The Court added: “Moreover, because a guilty plea is an admission of all the elements of a formal criminal charge, it cannot be truly voluntary unless the defendant possesses an understanding of the law in relation to the facts.” 394 U.S. at 466 , 89 S.Ct. at 1171 , 22 L.Ed.2d at 425 . 1976The Court added: “Moreover, because a guilty plea is an admission of all the elements of a formal criminal charge, it cannot be truly voluntary unless the defendant possesses an understanding of the law in relation to the facts.” 394 U.S. at 466 , 89 S.Ct. at 1171 , 22 L.Ed.2d at 425 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
United States v. Wade
green
2 sentences1973Less than a year after Wade (U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 ) and Gilbert (Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 ) were decided, the Court explained the rule of those decisions as follows: ‘The rationale of those cases was that an accused is entitled to counsel at any “critical stage of the prosecution", and that a post-indictment lineup is such a “critical stage”.’ (citations) We decline to depart from that rationale today by imposing a per se exclusionary rule upon testimony concerning an identification that took place long before 1973Less than a year after Wade (U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 ) and Gilbert (Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 ) were decided, the Court explained the rule of those decisions as follows: ‘The rationale of those cases was that an accused is entitled to counsel at any “critical stage of the prosecution", and that a post-indictment lineup is such a “critical stage”.’ (citations) We decline to depart from that rationale today by imposing a per se exclusionary rule upon testimony concerning an identification that took place long before | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Gilbert v. California
green
2 sentences1973Less than a year after Wade (U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 ) and Gilbert (Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 ) were decided, the Court explained the rule of those decisions as follows: ‘The rationale of those cases was that an accused is entitled to counsel at any “critical stage of the prosecution", and that a post-indictment lineup is such a “critical stage”.’ (citations) We decline to depart from that rationale today by imposing a per se exclusionary rule upon testimony concerning an identification that took place long before 1973Less than a year after Wade (U.S. v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 ) and Gilbert (Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 ) were decided, the Court explained the rule of those decisions as follows: ‘The rationale of those cases was that an accused is entitled to counsel at any “critical stage of the prosecution", and that a post-indictment lineup is such a “critical stage”.’ (citations) We decline to depart from that rationale today by imposing a per se exclusionary rule upon testimony concerning an identification that took place long before | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.