12 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Marylandgreen2 sentences2021“Trial courts have broad 7See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). 10 discretion in ruling on claims of prosecutorial misconduct and we review such rulings for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Plain, 898 N.W.2d 801, 810 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted). 2019See Haines v. State, No. 05-0656, 2006 WL 1409099, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. May 24, 2006). 2 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). 3 Haines also raised a number of issues pro se. | 4 | 5 |
Harrington v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509, 516 (Iowa 2003). 3 Brownlee frames these issues as being preserved as a result of ineffective assistance of trial and PCR counsel. 2018Pegram insists his most recent PCR counsel should have been allowed time to review his criminal file to see if there were any violations of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 , 87 (1963), which held "failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Harrington , 659 N.W.2d at 516 . | 1 | 2 |
State of Iowa v. Kelvin Plain Sr.green1 sentence2021“Trial courts have broad 7See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). 10 discretion in ruling on claims of prosecutorial misconduct and we review such rulings for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Plain, 898 N.W.2d 801, 810 (Iowa 2017) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State Of Iowa Vs. Robert L. Hanesgreen1 sentence2021“This court will not find an abuse of discretion ‘unless the defendant shows that the trial court’s discretion was exercised on grounds clearly untenable or clearly unreasonable.’” State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 901 (Iowa 2003) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 551 (Iowa 2010). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pipergreen1 sentence2021“This court will not find an abuse of discretion ‘unless the defendant shows that the trial court’s discretion was exercised on grounds clearly untenable or clearly unreasonable.’” State v. Piper, 663 N.W.2d 894, 901 (Iowa 2003) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hanes, 790 N.W.2d 545, 551 (Iowa 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Haines v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Haines v. State, No. 05-0656, 2006 WL 1409099, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. May 24, 2006). 2 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (holding failure of prosecution to disclose evidence that may be favorable to the accused is a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment). 3 Haines also raised a number of issues pro se. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitfieldgreen1 sentence2014State v. Whitfield, 212 N.W.2d 402, 409 (Iowa 1973). | 1 | 1 |
Reynolds v. Iowa Department of Human Servicesgreen1 sentence2012See Reynolds v. Iowa Dept. of Human Servs., 493 N.W.2d 813, 815 (Iowa 1992) (describing DHS obligation to grant an evidentiary hearing). | 1 | 1 |
State v. O'CONNELLgreen1 sentence1995See, e.g., State v. O’Connell, 275 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1979) (victim’s fears were relevant in a murder case to show prior relationship between accused and the alleged victim); State v. Fowler, 248 N.W.2d 511, 515-16 (Iowa 1976), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 , 99 S.Ct. 842 , 59 L.Ed.2d 37 (1979) (a validly asserted homicide-related accident defense may, under appropriate circumstances, open the door to admission of “state of mind” testimony disclosing the victim’s fear of his or her assailant); State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Iowa 1975) (victim’s fear of the accused, communicated by the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fowlergreen1 sentence1995See, e.g., State v. O’Connell, 275 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1979) (victim’s fears were relevant in a murder case to show prior relationship between accused and the alleged victim); State v. Fowler, 248 N.W.2d 511, 515-16 (Iowa 1976), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 , 99 S.Ct. 842 , 59 L.Ed.2d 37 (1979) (a validly asserted homicide-related accident defense may, under appropriate circumstances, open the door to admission of “state of mind” testimony disclosing the victim’s fear of his or her assailant); State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Iowa 1975) (victim’s fear of the accused, communicated by the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ebelsheisergreen2 sentences1995See, e.g., State v. O’Connell, 275 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1979) (victim’s fears were relevant in a murder case to show prior relationship between accused and the alleged victim); State v. Fowler, 248 N.W.2d 511, 515-16 (Iowa 1976), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 , 99 S.Ct. 842 , 59 L.Ed.2d 37 (1979) (a validly asserted homicide-related accident defense may, under appropriate circumstances, open the door to admission of “state of mind” testimony disclosing the victim’s fear of his or her assailant); State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Iowa 1975) (victim’s fear of the accused, communicated by the 1995See, e.g., State v. O’Connell, 275 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1979) (victim’s fears were relevant in a murder case to show prior relationship between accused and the alleged victim); State v. Fowler, 248 N.W.2d 511, 515-16 (Iowa 1976), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 , 99 S.Ct. 842 , 59 L.Ed.2d 37 (1979) (a validly asserted homicide-related accident defense may, under appropriate circumstances, open the door to admission of “state of mind” testimony disclosing the victim’s fear of his or her assailant); State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Iowa 1975) (victim’s fear of the accused, communicated by the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hinklegreen1 sentence1995See, e.g., State v. O’Connell, 275 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1979) (victim’s fears were relevant in a murder case to show prior relationship between accused and the alleged victim); State v. Fowler, 248 N.W.2d 511, 515-16 (Iowa 1976), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 , 99 S.Ct. 842 , 59 L.Ed.2d 37 (1979) (a validly asserted homicide-related accident defense may, under appropriate circumstances, open the door to admission of “state of mind” testimony disclosing the victim’s fear of his or her assailant); State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Iowa 1975) (victim’s fear of the accused, communicated by the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
American Service Corp. v. United States
green
1 sentence1995See, e.g., State v. O’Connell, 275 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1979) (victim’s fears were relevant in a murder case to show prior relationship between accused and the alleged victim); State v. Fowler, 248 N.W.2d 511, 515-16 (Iowa 1976), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 , 99 S.Ct. 842 , 59 L.Ed.2d 37 (1979) (a validly asserted homicide-related accident defense may, under appropriate circumstances, open the door to admission of “state of mind” testimony disclosing the victim’s fear of his or her assailant); State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Iowa 1975) (victim’s fear of the accused, communicated by the | 1 | 1995–1995 |
T. G. Motors, Inc. v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1995See, e.g., State v. O’Connell, 275 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1979) (victim’s fears were relevant in a murder case to show prior relationship between accused and the alleged victim); State v. Fowler, 248 N.W.2d 511, 515-16 (Iowa 1976), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 , 99 S.Ct. 842 , 59 L.Ed.2d 37 (1979) (a validly asserted homicide-related accident defense may, under appropriate circumstances, open the door to admission of “state of mind” testimony disclosing the victim’s fear of his or her assailant); State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Iowa 1975) (victim’s fear of the accused, communicated by the | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Fowler v. Iowa
green
1 sentence1995See, e.g., State v. O’Connell, 275 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1979) (victim’s fears were relevant in a murder case to show prior relationship between accused and the alleged victim); State v. Fowler, 248 N.W.2d 511, 515-16 (Iowa 1976), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1072 , 99 S.Ct. 842 , 59 L.Ed.2d 37 (1979) (a validly asserted homicide-related accident defense may, under appropriate circumstances, open the door to admission of “state of mind” testimony disclosing the victim’s fear of his or her assailant); State v. Hinkle, 229 N.W.2d 744, 747 (Iowa 1975) (victim’s fear of the accused, communicated by the | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Leins
green
2 sentences1977Leins, supra, 234 N.W.2d at 648-649 . 1977Leins, supra, 234 N.W.2d at 648-649 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Boyd
green
1 sentence1976State v. Boyd, supra. In this setting, it is not surprising that courts which allow challenge of the affidavit do not hold that the filing of a motion to suppress itself nullifies the statements in the affidavit or hold that proof of one misstatement itself constitutes proof that other statements in the affidavit are untrue. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Jensen
green
2 sentences1974Cf. State v. Jensen, 189 N.W.2d 919 (Iowa 1971). 1974Cf. State v. Jensen, 189 N.W.2d 919 (Iowa 1971). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Billberg
green
2 sentences1951State v. Harrington, 220 Iowa 1116, 1123 , 264 N.W. 24, 28 ; State v. Billberg, 229 Iowa 1208, 1222 , 296 N.W. 396, 403 . 1951State v. Harrington, 220 Iowa 1116, 1123 , 264 N.W. 24, 28 ; State v. Billberg, 229 Iowa 1208, 1222 , 296 N.W. 396, 403 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
State v. Harrington
green
2 sentences1951State v. Harrington, 220 Iowa 1116, 1123 , 264 N.W. 24, 28 ; State v. Billberg, 229 Iowa 1208, 1222 , 296 N.W. 396, 403 . 1951State v. Harrington, 220 Iowa 1116, 1123 , 264 N.W. 24, 28 ; State v. Billberg, 229 Iowa 1208, 1222 , 296 N.W. 396, 403 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.