12 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1865–1995 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 |
|---|---|---|
Iowa Beef Processors, Inc. v. Millergreen2 sentences1995It reasoned that (1) “[djefining employment that ‘is principally localized in this state’ to allow benefits to be based exclusively upon the domicile of the employee ... would, in our opinion, be arbitrary”; (2) “[i]f the legislature ... intended to provide Iowa workers’ compensation benefits to employees who sustain injuries outside the state exclusively on the basis of domicile in this state, we do not believe that it would have utilized the ‘employment is principally localized in this state’ language in the enacting clause”; and (3) “the legislative intent underlying the enactment of sectio 1995Miller also concluded that the definitional clause “or if he is domiciled in this state” must be construed in conjunction with the enacting clause “employment [that] is principally localized in this state.” Miller, 312 N.W.2d at 533 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Di Pagliagreen2 sentences1981We have often said that the legislature may be its own lexicographer, and that we are bound to follow its definitions, State v. Di Paglia, 247 Iowa 79, 84 , 71 N.W.2d 601, 604 (1955), and may not add words or change terms under the guise of judicial construction. 1981We have often said that the legislature may be its own lexicographer, and that we are bound to follow its definitions, State v. Di Paglia, 247 Iowa 79, 84 , 71 N.W.2d 601, 604 (1955), and may not add words or change terms under the guise of judicial construction. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burnsgreen1 sentence1946Most of the confusion has grown out of the mistake of considering the position of. the exception in the statute as conclusive in itself (e. g., State v. Burns, supra, 181 Iowa 1098, 1102, 1103 , 165 N. W. 346 ). | 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. Beneke
neutral
2 sentences1946The rule as sometimes stated is that, if the exception is found in the enacting clause, it must be negatived, but if found in the statute after general words of prohibition then it need not be. [Citing State v. Van Vliet, supra; State v. Beneke, supra; and State v. Williams, supra; together with some cases from other jurisdictions.] While this is not perhaps an entirely accurate statement it is sufficient for present purposes. ” (Italics supplied.) It is impossible to reconcile the language of all our decisions. 1907State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 ; State v. Beneke, 9 Iowa, 203 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; Commonwealth v. Hart, 11 Cush. | 2 | 1907–1946 |
State v. Demarce
green
2 sentences1983DeMarce, 237 Iowa at 652-53 , 23 N.W.2d at 444 . *462 Chapter 99B contains ten different exceptions to section 725.7. 1983DeMarce, 237 Iowa at 652-53 , 23 N.W.2d at 444 . *462 Chapter 99B contains ten different exceptions to section 725.7. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence1946The rule as sometimes stated is that, if the exception is found in the enacting clause, it must be negatived, but if found in the statute after general words of prohibition then it need not be. [Citing State v. Van Vliet, supra; State v. Beneke, supra; and State v. Williams, supra; together with some cases from other jurisdictions.] While this is not perhaps an entirely accurate statement it is sufficient for present purposes. ” (Italics supplied.) It is impossible to reconcile the language of all our decisions. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
Shick v. Howe
green
1 sentence1932In Schick v. Howe (1908), 137 Iowa 249 , a daughter by adoption of an intestate was involved. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Russell v. State
green
1 sentence1907State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 ; State v. Beneke, 9 Iowa, 203 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; Commonwealth v. Hart, 11 Cush. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
State v. VanVliet
green
1 sentence1907State v. Van Vliet, 92 Iowa, 476 ; State v. Beneke, 9 Iowa, 203 ; Russell v. State, 50 Ind. 174 ; Commonwealth v. Hart, 11 Cush. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Parkyn v. Travis
neutral
1 sentence1903Plaintiffs, recognizing the force of Proska v. McCormack, 56 Iowa, 318 , and Parkyn v. Travis, 50 Iowa, 436 , and other like cases, contend, however, that, while the majority might have been right had the limitation been a contract one, vigorously contend that they are all wrong in applying the rules there announced to a statutory limitation. | 1 | 1903–1903 |
Proska v. McCormick
neutral
1 sentence1903Plaintiffs, recognizing the force of Proska v. McCormack, 56 Iowa, 318 , and Parkyn v. Travis, 50 Iowa, 436 , and other like cases, contend, however, that, while the majority might have been right had the limitation been a contract one, vigorously contend that they are all wrong in applying the rules there announced to a statutory limitation. | 1 | 1903–1903 |
Freeman v. Travelers' Insurance
neutral
1 sentence1894Freeman v. Insurance Co., 144 Mass. 572 , 12 N. E. | 1 | 1894–1894 |
The Marianna Flora
green
1 sentence1870Wayman v. Southard, 11 Wheat. 1 . | 1 | 1870–1870 |
Lequat v. People
green
1 sentence1865Or, as the rule is stated in Sequet v. The People, 11 Ill., 330 , “ if there be any exception in the same clause of the act which creates the offense, the indictment must show affirmatively that the defendant does not come within the exception; but if the exception or proviso be in a subsequent clause or statute, or, if in the same section, and not incorporated with the enacting clause by any words of reference, it is in that case matter of defense, and-need not be negatived in the pleading.” See also, Metzker v. The People, 14 Ill., 101 ; Romp v. The State, 3 G. | 1 | 1865–1865 |
Metzker v. People
green
1 sentence1865Or, as the rule is stated in Sequet v. The People, 11 Ill., 330 , “ if there be any exception in the same clause of the act which creates the offense, the indictment must show affirmatively that the defendant does not come within the exception; but if the exception or proviso be in a subsequent clause or statute, or, if in the same section, and not incorporated with the enacting clause by any words of reference, it is in that case matter of defense, and-need not be negatived in the pleading.” See also, Metzker v. The People, 14 Ill., 101 ; Romp v. The State, 3 G. | 1 | 1865–1865 |
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.