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 1986–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Graham v. Worthingtongreen2 sentences2017Hook v. Trevino, 839 N.W.2d 434, 439 (Iowa 2013); accord Graham v. Worthington, 259 Iowa 845, 857 , 146 N.W.2d 626, 634 (1966); see also Jones v. Univ. of Iowa, 836 N.W.2d 127 , 141–42 (Iowa 2013) (“The waiver of sovereign immunity, however, applies only to the actions specified in the statute.”). 2017Hook v. Trevino, 839 N.W.2d 434, 439 (Iowa 2013); accord Graham v. Worthington, 259 Iowa 845, 857 , 146 N.W.2d 626, 634 (1966); see also Jones v. Univ. of Iowa, 836 N.W.2d 127 , 141–42 (Iowa 2013) (“The waiver of sovereign immunity, however, applies only to the actions specified in the statute.”). | 3 | 3 |
Pamela Sue Hook v. Tito Trevino, Individually, and Tito Trevino D/B/A Trevino Law Officesgreen2 sentences2017Hook v. Trevino, 839 N.W.2d 434, 439 (Iowa 2013); accord Graham v. Worthington, 259 Iowa 845, 857 , 146 N.W.2d 626, 634 (1966); see also Jones v. Univ. of Iowa, 836 N.W.2d 127 , 141–42 (Iowa 2013) (“The waiver of sovereign immunity, however, applies only to the actions specified in the statute.”). 2017Hook v. Trevino, 839 N.W.2d 434, 439 (Iowa 2013); accord Graham v. Worthington, 259 Iowa 845, 857 , 146 N.W.2d 626, 634 (1966); see also Jones v. Univ. of Iowa, 836 N.W.2d 127 , 141–42 (Iowa 2013) (“The waiver of sovereign immunity, however, applies only to the actions specified in the statute.”). | 3 | 3 |
Phillip E. Jones v. University of Iowa the Board of Regents for the State of Iowa Sally Mason, President of the University of Iowa and Individually and the Stolar Partnership, LLPgreen2 sentences2017Hook v. Trevino, 839 N.W.2d 434, 439 (Iowa 2013); accord Graham v. Worthington, 259 Iowa 845, 857 , 146 N.W.2d 626, 634 (1966); see also Jones v. Univ. of Iowa, 836 N.W.2d 127 , 141–42 (Iowa 2013) (“The waiver of sovereign immunity, however, applies only to the actions specified in the statute.”). 2017Hook v. Trevino, 839 N.W.2d 434, 439 (Iowa 2013); accord Graham v. Worthington, 259 Iowa 845, 857 , 146 N.W.2d 626, 634 (1966); see also Jones v. Univ. of Iowa, 836 N.W.2d 127 , 141–42 (Iowa 2013) (“The waiver of sovereign immunity, however, applies only to the actions specified in the statute.”). | 3 | 3 |
Montanick Ex Rel. Montanick v. McMillingreen2 sentences2014See Montanick v. McMillin, 225 Iowa 442, 459 , 280 N.W. 608, 617 (1938). 2014See Montanick v. McMillin, 225 Iowa 442, 459 , 280 N.W. 608, 617 (1938). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Kinggreen2 sentences1987A waiver of sovereign immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1503 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52, 56 (1969). 1987A waiver of sovereign immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 , 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1503 , 23 L.Ed.2d 52, 56 (1969). | 1 | 2 |
Feltes v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Indeed, “[e]xhaustion of the administrative process is jurisdictional, and 8 a suit commenced without complying with this process is subject to dismissal.” Swanger, 445 N.W.2d at 347 ; see Feltes v. State, 385 N.W.2d 544, 548 (Iowa 1986) (en banc) (“A waiver of sovereign immunity is strictly construed, and consequently, the administrative claims procedure must be followed in order to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.”). | 1 | 1 |
Kevin Walker v. State of Iowagreen2 sentences2016Discretionary-function immunity only protects governmental a'ctors’ decision-making based' on policy considerations, See Anderson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Iowa 2005); accord Walker v. State, 801 N.W.2d 548, 555 (Iowa 2011), Furthermore, “we narrowly construe the discretionary, function exception.” Walker, 801 N.W.2d at 555 . “[Liability ,.. is the rule and immunity is the exception.” Schmitz v. City of Dubuque, 682 N.W.2d 70, 74 (Iowa 2004); accord Graber v. City of Ankeny, 656 N.W.2d 157, 161 (Iowa 2003). 2016Discretionary-function immunity only protects governmental a'ctors’ decision-making based' on policy considerations, See Anderson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Iowa 2005); accord Walker v. State, 801 N.W.2d 548, 555 (Iowa 2011), Furthermore, “we narrowly construe the discretionary, function exception.” Walker, 801 N.W.2d at 555 . “[Liability ,.. is the rule and immunity is the exception.” Schmitz v. City of Dubuque, 682 N.W.2d 70, 74 (Iowa 2004); accord Graber v. City of Ankeny, 656 N.W.2d 157, 161 (Iowa 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Schmitz v. City of Dubuquegreen1 sentence2016Discretionary-function immunity only protects governmental a'ctors’ decision-making based' on policy considerations, See Anderson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Iowa 2005); accord Walker v. State, 801 N.W.2d 548, 555 (Iowa 2011), Furthermore, “we narrowly construe the discretionary, function exception.” Walker, 801 N.W.2d at 555 . “[Liability ,.. is the rule and immunity is the exception.” Schmitz v. City of Dubuque, 682 N.W.2d 70, 74 (Iowa 2004); accord Graber v. City of Ankeny, 656 N.W.2d 157, 161 (Iowa 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Graber v. City of Ankenygreen1 sentence2016Discretionary-function immunity only protects governmental a'ctors’ decision-making based' on policy considerations, See Anderson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Iowa 2005); accord Walker v. State, 801 N.W.2d 548, 555 (Iowa 2011), Furthermore, “we narrowly construe the discretionary, function exception.” Walker, 801 N.W.2d at 555 . “[Liability ,.. is the rule and immunity is the exception.” Schmitz v. City of Dubuque, 682 N.W.2d 70, 74 (Iowa 2004); accord Graber v. City of Ankeny, 656 N.W.2d 157, 161 (Iowa 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Discretionary-function immunity only protects governmental a'ctors’ decision-making based' on policy considerations, See Anderson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 360, 364 (Iowa 2005); accord Walker v. State, 801 N.W.2d 548, 555 (Iowa 2011), Furthermore, “we narrowly construe the discretionary, function exception.” Walker, 801 N.W.2d at 555 . “[Liability ,.. is the rule and immunity is the exception.” Schmitz v. City of Dubuque, 682 N.W.2d 70, 74 (Iowa 2004); accord Graber v. City of Ankeny, 656 N.W.2d 157, 161 (Iowa 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Lyle E. Schneider, Paul S. Kurtz And Shirley J. Kurtz, Gene J. Peters, Sterling Tops, Inc., Robert W. Bonorden And Deann M. Bonorden, Gerald W. Petersen, Richard R. Kane And Debra K. Kane, Mark A. Doepke And Michelle L. Doepke, Gloria M. Knapp Freilinger, Rudy Busch D/b/a Rudy's Sales And Service, Paul R. Beem And Stacie L. Beem, David J. Fink And Deb Fink, Davik's Auto Body/denver Oil Company, Randall-marta Bender D/b/a Bender Enterprises, Inc., Tommie Brettmann D/b/a Denver Mill, Byron D. Davis And Jane P.Davis, Davis Farm And Auto, Inc., William Buss D/b/a Denver Construction, Inc., And Mike Wooldrik, As Of The Estate Of Robert Wooldrik, Vs. State Of Iowagreen1 sentence2015“The Iowa Tort Claims Act prescribes procedures governing tort claims against the State for the negligent acts of its officers, agents, or employees.” See generally Iowa Code ch. 669; Schneider v. State, 789 N.W.2d 138, 146 (Iowa 2010). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences1986United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349, 1351 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607, 613 (1980). 5 . 1986United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 , 100 S.Ct. 1349, 1351 , 63 L.Ed.2d 607, 613 (1980). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Figueroa v. State
green
2 sentences2017Id. (citations omitted). 2017Id. (citations omitted). | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Rivers v. City of New Britain
green
2 sentences2014In support of its argument that Iowa Code section 364.12(2)(c) does not waive sovereign immunity, the State cites two Connecticut cases, Rivers v. City of New Britain, 950 A.2d 1247 (Conn. 2008) (involving case in which the court granted the state’s motion to dismiss where claim was based on city ordinance that was authorized by statute generally imposing duty and liability on all abutting landowners to maintain sidewalk because statute did not 21 expressly waive state’s sovereign immunity), and Gould v. City of Hartford, 691 A.2d 35 (Conn. Super. 2014In support of its argument that Iowa Code section 364.12(2)(c) does not waive sovereign immunity, the State cites two Connecticut cases, Rivers v. City of New Britain, 950 A.2d 1247 (Conn. 2008) (involving case in which the court granted the state’s motion to dismiss where claim was based on city ordinance that was authorized by statute generally imposing duty and liability on all abutting landowners to maintain sidewalk because statute did not 21 expressly waive state’s sovereign immunity), and Gould v. City of Hartford, 691 A.2d 35 (Conn. Super. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Gould v. City of Hartford
green
2 sentences2014In support of its argument that Iowa Code section 364.12(2)(c) does not waive sovereign immunity, the State cites two Connecticut cases, Rivers v. City of New Britain, 950 A.2d 1247 (Conn. 2008) (involving case in which the court granted the state’s motion to dismiss where claim was based on city ordinance that was authorized by statute generally imposing duty and liability on all abutting landowners to maintain sidewalk because statute did not 21 expressly waive state’s sovereign immunity), and Gould v. City of Hartford, 691 A.2d 35 (Conn. Super. 2014In support of its argument that Iowa Code section 364.12(2)(c) does not waive sovereign immunity, the State cites two Connecticut cases, Rivers v. City of New Britain, 950 A.2d 1247 (Conn. 2008) (involving case in which the court granted the state’s motion to dismiss where claim was based on city ordinance that was authorized by statute generally imposing duty and liability on all abutting landowners to maintain sidewalk because statute did not 21 expressly waive state’s sovereign immunity), and Gould v. City of Hartford, 691 A.2d 35 (Conn. Super. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Swanger v. State
green
1 sentence2024Indeed, “[e]xhaustion of the administrative process is jurisdictional, and 8 a suit commenced without complying with this process is subject to dismissal.” Swanger, 445 N.W.2d at 347 ; see Feltes v. State, 385 N.W.2d 544, 548 (Iowa 1986) (en banc) (“A waiver of sovereign immunity is strictly construed, and consequently, the administrative claims procedure must be followed in order to invoke the court’s jurisdiction.”). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lloyd v. State
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Emma Reynolds v. United States
green
1 sentence1986Reynolds, 748 F.2d at 292 ; Three-M Enterprises, 548 F.2d at 295 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Three-M Enterprises, Inc. v. United States
green
1 sentence1986Reynolds, 748 F.2d at 292 ; Three-M Enterprises, 548 F.2d at 295 . | 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.