13 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1902–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. David S. Kelsengreen2 sentences2015Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kelsen, 855 N.W.2d 175, 181 (Iowa 2014). 2015Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kelsen, 855 N.W.2d 175, 181 (Iowa 2014). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Barbara H.green2 sentences2001See id. 2001See id. | 2 | 2 |
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Bruce A. Willeygreen2 sentences2018Id. r. 36.16(3); Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Willey, 889 N.W.2d 647, 653 (Iowa 2017). “[W]e will find the attorney violated the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct only if the record reveals a factual basis for concluding a violation of the rules occurred.” Taylor, 887 N.W.2d at 373 . 2018Id. r. 36.16(3) ; Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Willey , 889 N.W.2d 647 , 653 (Iowa 2017). "[W]e will find the attorney violated the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct only if the record reveals a factual basis for concluding a violation of the rules occurred." Taylor , 887 N.W.2d at 373 . | 1 | 2 |
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Heather Marie Kingerygreen1 sentence2020Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Kingery, 871 N.W.2d 109, 117 (Iowa 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Eric Wayne Dempsey v. State of Iowagreen2 sentences2019Id. at 868–69. 8 In particular, Nucaro claims counsel failed to adequately investigate potential defenses and mitigation to the probation violations, and counsel was ineffective for allowing him to enter a stipulation to violation of probation relating to a new charge. 2019His claims relate to the plea agreement he entered at the plea and revocation hearing. “[T]o demonstrate prejudice in the plea-bargaining process, ‘a claimant must show the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice.’” Dempsey, 860 N.W.2d at 869 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Brian Jesse Nelsongreen1 sentence2015“Factual matters admitted by an attorney in an answer are deemed established, regardless of the evidence in the record.” Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Nelson, 838 N.W.2d 528, 532 (Iowa 2013). 11 However, an attorney’s stipulation to a violation of our ethical rules is not binding on us. | 1 | 1 |
Kipf v. Bitnergreen2 sentences1955R.) is stated what we deem to be the correct test: “Unless it amounts to such a stipulation or waiver as to have the force of a judicial admission, the testimony of a party to a fact is ordinarily no more conclusive upon him than the evidence given by any other witness; and it is the duty of the court or jury to determine the fact, not alone from the testimony given by the party but from all the evidence in the case.” See also discussion in Kipf v. Bitner, 150 Neb. 155, 165 , 33 N.W.2d 518, 523, 524 . 1955R.) is stated what we deem to be the correct test: “Unless it amounts to such a stipulation or waiver as to have the force of a judicial admission, the testimony of a party to a fact is ordinarily no more conclusive upon him than the evidence given by any other witness; and it is the duty of the court or jury to determine the fact, not alone from the testimony given by the party but from all the evidence in the case.” See also discussion in Kipf v. Bitner, 150 Neb. 155, 165 , 33 N.W.2d 518, 523, 524 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board Vs. John W. Gaileygreen2 sentences2018However, we are not "bound by a stipulation of a violation or of a sanction." Id. at 804 . 2013But see Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Gailey, 790 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Iowa 2010) (“[W]e will not be bound by a stipulation of a violation or of á sanction in reaching our final decision in a disciplinary case.”). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Karen A. Taylor
green
2 sentences2018Id. r. 36.16(3) ; Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Willey , 889 N.W.2d 647 , 653 (Iowa 2017). "[W]e will find the attorney violated the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct only if the record reveals a factual basis for concluding a violation of the rules occurred." Taylor , 887 N.W.2d at 373 . 2018Id. r. 36.16(3) ; Iowa Supreme Ct. Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Willey , 889 N.W.2d 647 , 653 (Iowa 2017). "[W]e will find the attorney violated the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct only if the record reveals a factual basis for concluding a violation of the rules occurred." Taylor , 887 N.W.2d at 373 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Staff Management and New Hampshire Insurance Company v. Pascuala Jimenez
green
1 sentence2021“If [a] stipulation contained in the hearing report is binding, we must consider if the parties, due to their colloquy with the deputy and the evidence introduced at the hearing, abandoned the stipulation in the hearing report.” Staff Mgmt., 839 N.W.2d at 656 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Kanopka v. Kanopka
green
2 sentences1955S., Evidence, section 1040c, the text says: “It is frequently held, in general terms or in effect, that a party is bound by his own testimony, provided, it is understamMngly given,” (emphasis supplied) citing Hughes v. Greider, supra. And later, in the same section (page 1112) it is said the application of that general rule “has been said to be narrow even in jurisdictions where the principle is recognized, and it has been limited to situations in which ,a party’s testimony amounts to such a stipulation or waiver as to have the force of a judicial admission”, citing Kanopka v. Kanopka, 113 Con 1955S., Evidence, section 1040c, the text says: “It is frequently held, in general terms or in effect, that a party is bound by his own testimony, provided, it is understamMngly given,” (emphasis supplied) citing Hughes v. Greider, supra. And later, in the same section (page 1112) it is said the application of that general rule “has been said to be narrow even in jurisdictions where the principle is recognized, and it has been limited to situations in which ,a party’s testimony amounts to such a stipulation or waiver as to have the force of a judicial admission”, citing Kanopka v. Kanopka, 113 Con | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Hughes v. Greider
green
1 sentence1955S., Evidence, section 1040c, the text says: “It is frequently held, in general terms or in effect, that a party is bound by his own testimony, provided, it is understamMngly given,” (emphasis supplied) citing Hughes v. Greider, supra. And later, in the same section (page 1112) it is said the application of that general rule “has been said to be narrow even in jurisdictions where the principle is recognized, and it has been limited to situations in which ,a party’s testimony amounts to such a stipulation or waiver as to have the force of a judicial admission”, citing Kanopka v. Kanopka, 113 Con | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Haynes v. . Aldrich
green
1 sentence1902But, on the other hand, he may, if he sees fit, become a tenant holding over after the expiration of his term; that is, a tenant at - will under the provisions of our statute (Code, section 2991; O’Brien v. Troxel, 76 Iowa, 760 ; Bank v. Herron, 111 Iowa, 25 ); or, in some states, a tenant from year to year, and bound to continue in possession for an additional term, as fixed by law (Haynes v. Aldrich, 133 N. Y. 287 (31 N. E. | 1 | 1902–1902 |
O'Brien v. Troxel & Brother
neutral
1 sentence1902But, on the other hand, he may, if he sees fit, become a tenant holding over after the expiration of his term; that is, a tenant at - will under the provisions of our statute (Code, section 2991; O’Brien v. Troxel, 76 Iowa, 760 ; Bank v. Herron, 111 Iowa, 25 ); or, in some states, a tenant from year to year, and bound to continue in possession for an additional term, as fixed by law (Haynes v. Aldrich, 133 N. Y. 287 (31 N. E. | 1 | 1902–1902 |
German State Bank v. Herron
neutral
1 sentence1902But, on the other hand, he may, if he sees fit, become a tenant holding over after the expiration of his term; that is, a tenant at - will under the provisions of our statute (Code, section 2991; O’Brien v. Troxel, 76 Iowa, 760 ; Bank v. Herron, 111 Iowa, 25 ); or, in some states, a tenant from year to year, and bound to continue in possession for an additional term, as fixed by law (Haynes v. Aldrich, 133 N. Y. 287 (31 N. E. | 1 | 1902–1902 |
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.