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.
12 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1931–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Orcutt v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Orcutt, 173 N.W.2d at 70 (reversing the denial of a continuance where counsel was appointed three days before hearing and did not 13 meet with client until the day of the hearing). 2016Furthermore, “whether in any case enough time has been afforded for consultation, investigation for witnesses and preparation of the law and facts depends upon the circumstances of the case including the complexity of the factual issues and the legal principles involved.” Id. at 71 . | 1 | 2 |
Hedquist v. Hedquistgreen1 sentence2026Ct. App. 1989) (per curiam) (holding that there was a “due process error” when “the defendant received only two actual working days notice of the contempt hearing and was therefore not afforded a reasonable time for preparation of his defense”); Hedquist v. Hedquist, 563 S.E.2d 854, 856 (Ga. 2002) (holding that notice did not comply with due process where the trial court “decid[ed] contempt charges filed as late as the day of the hearing”). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of M.M.green1 sentence2022Due to ongoing concerns about the mother’s mental health and substance abuse, we agree the child cannot be safely placed in 20 See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707 (interpreting the statutory language “at the present time” to mean “at the time of the termination hearing”); In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Iowa 1992) (“[A] child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parent under section 232.102 if by doing so the child would be exposed to any harm amounting to a new child in need of assistance adjudication.”). 10 her care, and the State proved a ground to terminate her parental rights under s | 1 | 1 |
In The Interest Of D.W., Minor Child, A.M.W., Mothergreen1 sentence2022Due to ongoing concerns about the mother’s mental health and substance abuse, we agree the child cannot be safely placed in 20 See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707 (interpreting the statutory language “at the present time” to mean “at the time of the termination hearing”); In re M.M., 483 N.W.2d 812, 814 (Iowa 1992) (“[A] child cannot be returned to the custody of the child’s parent under section 232.102 if by doing so the child would be exposed to any harm amounting to a new child in need of assistance adjudication.”). 10 her care, and the State proved a ground to terminate her parental rights under s | 1 | 1 |
Stockdale, Inc. v. Bakergreen1 sentence1992See Iowa R.Civ.P. 237(c) (“The adverse party prior to the day of hearing may file opposing affidavits.”) (emphasis added); Stockdale, Inc. v. Baker, 364 N.W.2d 240, 243-44 (Iowa 1985) (affidavits not timely filed under Iowa R.Civ.P. 237 should not be considered); Neoco, Inc. v. B.C. | 1 | 1 |
Neoco, Inc. v. Christensongreen1 sentence1992Christenson, 312 N.W.2d 559, 560 (Iowa 1981) (district court may properly refuse to reconsider a summary judgment ruling based upon late-filed affidavits). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Des Moines v. Civil Service Commission of Des Moines
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2008Id. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
In the Interest of M.D., K.T., G.A., E.A. and S.A., Minor Children
green
1 sentence2020The father was unable to complete his testimony due to time restrictions, and a third day of the hearing was eventually scheduled. whether a parent’s due process rights were violated when they were only allowed to testify—but not otherwise participate—in a termination hearing. 921 N.W.2d at 234–36. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In the Interest of L.T., A.T., and D.T., Minor Children
green
1 sentence2019“When a juvenile court diligently enters a termination order after a hearing, there is generally no basis to complain about a discretionary refusal of the juvenile 5 court to reopen the record, particularly when the evidence was available to the parties at the time of the hearing.” Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Oscar Mayer Foods Corp. v. Tasler
green
1 sentence2004Citing due process principles elucidated in Oscar Mayer Foods Corp. v. Tasler, 483 N.W.2d 824 (Iowa 1992), the district court reversed, holding it was fundamentally unfair to permit Waters to change his theory of the case on the day of the hearing, and that the Hospitals suffered prejudice as a result. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Muzingo v. St. Luke's Hospital
green
1 sentence2003Swift’s apparent confusion as to his precise role in the conservatorship proceeding does not, however, automatically mean there is a factual dispute with respect to whether he is protected by quasi-judicial immunity. “[I]n determining whether absolute immunity applies, the focus is on the nature of the function performed, not on the identity or title of the particular actor.” Muzingo, 518 N.W.2d at 777 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. v. Sedgwick
green
1 sentence1931The statutory requirement of notice and a day of hearing is one which will be strictly construed. ’ ’ In Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company v. Sedgwick, 203 Iowa 726 , we said: “The rule is well established that the statutory conditions precedent to the order or the making of a public improvement must be strictly followed. ’ ’ If jurisdiction was not obtained, then the order establishing the district and all subsequent proceedings are, as to the appellants, void. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.