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 2002–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gravesgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 526 (Iowa 2011) (concluding defendant failed to preserve claim of prosecutorial misconduct because, while he objected at the time, “[h]e objected only that the question was argumentative” and “asked for no further relief such as a mistrial”), see also State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 868 (Iowa 2003) (“Because objection was not made at trial, Graves’ claim of prosecutorial misconduct is raised on appeal in the context of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.”). 2021In mentioning one of the Graves factors, curative measures, Robinson states, “[n]o curative action was taken as defense counsel breached a duty in failing to object.” See Graves, 668 N.W.2d at 869 . | 4 | 6 |
State of Iowa v. Zyriah Henry Floyd Schlittergreen2 sentences2018See State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 869 (Iowa 2003); see also Schlitter, 881 N.W.2d at 394 (noting the Graves test “easily translate[s] to an evaluation of prosecutorial error”). 2018See State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 869 (Iowa 2003); see also Schlitter, 881 N.W.2d at 394 (noting the Graves test “easily translate[s] to an evaluation of prosecutorial error”). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Careygreen2 sentences2020See Carey, 709 N.W.2d at 556 . 2019See Carey, 709 N.W.2d at 556 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hilleshiemgreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., State v. Hilleshiem, 291 N.W.2d 314 , 318–19 (Iowa 1980) (listing requirements for “checkpoint” stop to meet constitutional muster when there is not consent, probable cause, or Terry-type reasonable and articulable suspicion). | 1 | 1 |
Delaware v. Prousegreen1 sentence2022Cf. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979) (“The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments are implicated . . . because stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitutes a ‘seizure’ within the meaning of those Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief.”). | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Robert Paul Krogmanngreen1 sentence2021See State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 526 (Iowa 2011) (concluding defendant failed to preserve claim of prosecutorial misconduct because, while he objected at the time, “[h]e objected only that the question was argumentative” and “asked for no further relief such as a mistrial”), see also State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 868 (Iowa 2003) (“Because objection was not made at trial, Graves’ claim of prosecutorial misconduct is raised on appeal in the context of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Mark Gabriel Martingreen2 sentences2016Ritenour argues the prosecutor’s characterization of her statements as “lies” was “not isolated but repeated several times throughout the course of the 5 Our supreme court recently explained its choice to use the term “error” rather than “misconduct” so as “to avoid automatically implying that the prosecutor violated our ethical rules.” State v. Martin, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ n.2, 2016 WL 1533515, at *5 (Iowa 2016). 19 closing argument.” She also points out the State made her changing stories the central issue in the case. 2016Ritenour argues the prosecutor’s characterization of her statements as “lies” was “not isolated but repeated several times throughout the course of the 5 Our supreme court recently explained its choice to use the term “error” rather than “misconduct” so as “to avoid automatically implying that the prosecutor violated our ethical rules.” State v. Martin, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ n.2, 2016 WL 1533515, at *5 (Iowa 2016). 19 closing argument.” She also points out the State made her changing stories the central issue in the case. | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2003See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984) (holding Sixth Amendment guarantees the effective assistance of counsel to ensure criminal defendants receive a fair trial). 2003See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2065 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 693 (1984) (holding Sixth Amendment guarantees the effective assistance of counsel to ensure criminal defendants receive a fair trial). | 1 | 1 |
Lara v. Thomasgreen1 sentence2002She contends the word “injure” should have been changed to “affect,” the word we used in Lara v. Thomas, 512 N.W.2d 777, 785 (Iowa 1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.