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.
13 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2019 0 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 of Iowa v. Christine Ann Kerngreen2 sentences2014See State v. Kern, 831 N.W.2d 149, 174 (Iowa 2013). 2014See State v. Kern, 831 N.W.2d 149, 174 (Iowa 2013). | 3 | 3 |
Hulme v. Barrettgreen2 sentences2014We are, however, “not bound by federal law, despite consistent utilization of the federal analytical framework.” Id. (citing Hulme v. Barrett, 449 N.W.2d 629, 631 (Iowa 1989)). 30 We have not, however, explicitly adopted under state law either the teaching of Wards Cove or Wal-Mart. 2014We are, however, “not bound by federal law, despite consistent utilization of the federal analytical framework.” Id. (citing Hulme v. Barrett, 449 N.W.2d 629, 631 (Iowa 1989)). 30 We have not, however, explicitly adopted under state law either the teaching of Wards Cove or Wal-Mart. | 3 | 3 |
Pecenka v. Fareway Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2019We are, however, ‘not bound by federal law, despite consistent utilization of the federal analytical framework.’” Pippen v. State, 9 854 N.W.2d 1, 18 (Iowa 2014) (quoting Pecenka v. Fareway Stores, Inc., 672 N.W.2d 800, 803 (Iowa 2003)); see also Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n, 784 N.W.2d 8 , 15–16 (Iowa 2010) (“While interpretations of the Fair Housing Act are instructive when interpreting the housing provisions of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, they are not controlling.”). 2014We are, however, “not bound by federal law, despite consistent utilization of the federal analytical framework.” Id. (citing Hulme v. Barrett, 449 N.W.2d 629, 631 (Iowa 1989)). 30 We have not, however, explicitly adopted under state law either the teaching of Wards Cove or Wal-Mart. | 2 | 5 |
Racing Ass'n of Central Iowa v. Fitzgeraldgreen2 sentences2012Therefore, applying the rational basis test traditionally or independently in a more rigorous fashion as we did in RACI, compare RACI, 675 N.W.2d at 16 (finding a violation of the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution by applying the federal analytical framework), with Fitzgerald v. Racing Ass’n of Cent. 2012Therefore, applying the rational basis test traditionally or independently in a more rigorous fashion as we did in RACI, compare RACI, 675 N.W.2d at 16 (finding a violation of the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution by applying the federal analytical framework), with Fitzgerald v. Racing Ass’n of Cent. | 2 | 2 |
Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Commissiongreen1 sentence2019We are, however, ‘not bound by federal law, despite consistent utilization of the federal analytical framework.’” Pippen v. State, 9 854 N.W.2d 1, 18 (Iowa 2014) (quoting Pecenka v. Fareway Stores, Inc., 672 N.W.2d 800, 803 (Iowa 2003)); see also Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n, 784 N.W.2d 8 , 15–16 (Iowa 2010) (“While interpretations of the Fair Housing Act are instructive when interpreting the housing provisions of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, they are not controlling.”). | 1 | 1 |
Tammie Ackelson v. Manley Toy Direct, L.L.C. And Toy Network, L.L.C. v. Manley Toy Direct, L.L.C.. And Toy Network, L.L.C.green1 sentence2019“Our task is to ascertain the intent of our legislature.” Ackelson v. Manley Toy Direct, L.L.C., 832 N.W.2d 678, 687 (Iowa 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Linda Pippen, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Stategreen1 sentence2019We are, however, ‘not bound by federal law, despite consistent utilization of the federal analytical framework.’” Pippen v. State, 9 854 N.W.2d 1, 18 (Iowa 2014) (quoting Pecenka v. Fareway Stores, Inc., 672 N.W.2d 800, 803 (Iowa 2003)); see also Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm’n, 784 N.W.2d 8 , 15–16 (Iowa 2010) (“While interpretations of the Fair Housing Act are instructive when interpreting the housing provisions of the Iowa Civil Rights Act, they are not controlling.”). | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Tommy Tyler, Jr.green1 sentence2017See State v. Carter, 696 N.W.2d 31, 37 (Iowa 2005) (“Because Carter has not asserted and we have not found a basis to distinguish the protection afforded by the Iowa Constitution from those afforded by the federal constitution under the facts of this case, our analysis applies equally to both the state and federal grounds.”); see also State v. Tyler, 830 N.W.2d 288, 299 (Iowa 2013) (“We have repeatedly stated when a party makes claims under parallel provisions of both the Iowa and Federal Constitutions but does not suggest an independent state constitutional standard, we apply the federal stan | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen1 sentence2017See State v. Carter, 696 N.W.2d 31, 37 (Iowa 2005) (“Because Carter has not asserted and we have not found a basis to distinguish the protection afforded by the Iowa Constitution from those afforded by the federal constitution under the facts of this case, our analysis applies equally to both the state and federal grounds.”); see also State v. Tyler, 830 N.W.2d 288, 299 (Iowa 2013) (“We have repeatedly stated when a party makes claims under parallel provisions of both the Iowa and Federal Constitutions but does not suggest an independent state constitutional standard, we apply the federal stan | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Denem Anthony Nullgreen1 sentence2015See State v. Null, 836 N.W.2d 41, 51 (Iowa 2013) (citing Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d at 883–86). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brueggergreen1 sentence2015See State v. Null, 836 N.W.2d 41, 51 (Iowa 2013) (citing Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d at 883–86). | 1 | 1 |
Fitzgerald v. Racing Assn. of Central Iowagreen2 sentences2012Iowa, 539 U.S. 103, 110 , 123 S.Ct. 2156, 2161 , 156 L.Ed.2d 97, 105 (2003) (finding no violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution when applying the traditional federal analytical framework), NextEra has failed to demonstrate a lack of factual basis for the asserted legitimate purposes. 2012Iowa, 539 U.S. 103, 110 , 123 S.Ct. 2156, 2161 , 156 L.Ed.2d 97, 105 (2003) (finding no violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution when applying the traditional federal analytical framework), NextEra has failed to demonstrate a lack of factual basis for the asserted legitimate purposes. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lyle
green
1 sentence2016He does not expressly suggest we interpret the Iowa Constitution differently than the Federal Constitution, but his argument centers upon Lyle, wherein the majority “follow[ed] the federal analytical framework in deciding [Lyle], but ultimately use[d its] judgment in giving meaning to [Iowa’s] prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in reaching [its] conclusion.” See 854 N.W.2d at 401-03 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.