13 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2020 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 v. Powersgreen2 sentences2016Similarly, in State v. Powers, the Vermont Supreme Court noted that where an OWI defendant’s conversations were recorded, such a recording violated his statutory right to meaningful consultation with an attorney. 852 A.2d 605, 610 (Vt. 2004). 2016Similarly, in State v. Powers, the Vermont Supreme Court noted that where an OWI defendant’s conversations were recorded, such a recording violated his statutory right to meaningful consultation with an attorney. 176 Vt. 444 , 852 A.2d 605, 610 (2004). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Allengreen2 sentences2017In People v. Allen, the court ruled that the phrase “proximately caused any incident” meant the OWI violation had to be separate from the “incident.” See 365 Ill.Dec. 187 , 977 N.E.2d 1286,1289-90 (2012). 2017In People v. Allen, the court ruled that the phrase “proximately caused any incident” meant the OWI violation had to be separate from the “incident.” See 365 Ill.Dec. 187 , 977 N.E.2d 1286,1289-90 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Murphygreen1 sentence2014See State v. Smith, 522 N.W.2d 591, 594 (Iowa 1994) (allowing opinion testimony on one element of the crime); State v. Ely, 690 N.W.2d 698 (Iowa Ct. App. 2004) (allowing opinion testimony defendant was pictured in ATM photographs at time thefts occurred); compare State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1990) (allowing opinion testimony that OWI defendant was intoxicated) with State v. Maurer, 409 N.W.2d 196, 198 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987) (finding testimony that beyond all reasonable doubt defendant operated a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated was inadmissible). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2014See State v. Smith, 522 N.W.2d 591, 594 (Iowa 1994) (allowing opinion testimony on one element of the crime); State v. Ely, 690 N.W.2d 698 (Iowa Ct. App. 2004) (allowing opinion testimony defendant was pictured in ATM photographs at time thefts occurred); compare State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1990) (allowing opinion testimony that OWI defendant was intoxicated) with State v. Maurer, 409 N.W.2d 196, 198 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987) (finding testimony that beyond all reasonable doubt defendant operated a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated was inadmissible). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Maurergreen1 sentence2014See State v. Smith, 522 N.W.2d 591, 594 (Iowa 1994) (allowing opinion testimony on one element of the crime); State v. Ely, 690 N.W.2d 698 (Iowa Ct. App. 2004) (allowing opinion testimony defendant was pictured in ATM photographs at time thefts occurred); compare State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1990) (allowing opinion testimony that OWI defendant was intoxicated) with State v. Maurer, 409 N.W.2d 196, 198 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987) (finding testimony that beyond all reasonable doubt defendant operated a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated was inadmissible). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Knousgreen1 sentence2008State v. Knous, 313 N.W.2d 510, 512 (Iowa 1981); see Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (holding taking a blood sample against the OWI defendant’s objection did not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution). | 1 | 1 |
Schmerber v. Californiagreen2 sentences2008State v. Knous, 313 N.W.2d 510, 512 (Iowa 1981); see Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (holding taking a blood sample against the OWI defendant’s objection did not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution). 2008State v. Knous, 313 N.W.2d 510, 512 (Iowa 1981); see Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966) (holding taking a blood sample against the OWI defendant’s objection did not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schultzgreen2 sentences2001In State v. Schultz, we held that, when a prior OWI violation is used to enhance the punishment for an OWI offense, the prior violation is not an element of the crime charged. 604 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1999). 2001In State v. Schultz, we held that, when a prior OWI violation is used to enhance the punishment for an OWI offense, the prior violation is not an element of the crime charged. 604 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Molan v. Stategreen1 sentence1994See Molan v. State, 614 P.2d 79, 80 (Okla.Crim.App.1980). | 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. Holmes
green
1 sentence2020On this record, because the officer could have issued a parking ticket without seizing Warren, trial counsel was ineffective in not moving to suppress evidence discovered during the investigation that followed that initial seizure. 21 As Warren urges on appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court’s analysis in State v. Holmes is apt. 569 N.W.2d 181 (Minn. 1997). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State of Iowa v. Brian M. Kennedy
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 521–22. 2018Id. at 521-22 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. WYNIA
neutral
1 sentence2014See State v. Smith, 522 N.W.2d 591, 594 (Iowa 1994) (allowing opinion testimony on one element of the crime); State v. Ely, 690 N.W.2d 698 (Iowa Ct. App. 2004) (allowing opinion testimony defendant was pictured in ATM photographs at time thefts occurred); compare State v. Murphy, 451 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1990) (allowing opinion testimony that OWI defendant was intoxicated) with State v. Maurer, 409 N.W.2d 196, 198 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987) (finding testimony that beyond all reasonable doubt defendant operated a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated was inadmissible). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Soppe
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 652 . 1999Id. at 652 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Ueding
green
2 sentences1989Id. 1989Id. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Barlow
green
2 sentences1986The prior offenses referred to in section 321.281 which shall increase the penalty mean “offenses that have been legally ascertained and determined—synonymous with convictions or judgments obtained in prior actions against the defendant for violation of the said statute.” Id., 46 N.W.2d at 728 . 1986The prior offenses referred to in section 321.281 which shall increase the penalty mean “offenses that have been legally ascertained and determined—synonymous with convictions or judgments obtained in prior actions against the defendant for violation of the said statute.” Id., 46 N.W.2d at 728 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.