12 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1914–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Estate of Spraguegreen2 sentences2017Id.; see also In re Estate of Sprague, 244 Iowa 540, 546 , 57 N.W.2d 212, 216 (1953); In re Estate of Keeler, 225 Iowa 1349, 1354-55 , 282 N.W. 362, 365 (1938); In re Estate of Bernhard, 134 Iowa 603, 603 , 112 N.W. 86 , 86 (1907). *469 In the early 1960s, we began to depart from the rigid application of the identity rule and considered a number of cases under a “modified intention” approach. 2017Id.; see also In re Estate of Sprague, 244 Iowa 540, 546 , 57 N.W.2d 212, 216 (1953); In re Estate of Keeler, 225 Iowa 1349, 1354-55 , 282 N.W. 362, 365 (1938); In re Estate of Bernhard, 134 Iowa 603, 603 , 112 N.W. 86 , 86 (1907). *469 In the early 1960s, we began to depart from the rigid application of the identity rule and considered a number of cases under a “modified intention” approach. | 2 | 4 |
In Re Estate of Keelergreen2 sentences2017Id.; see also In re Estate of Sprague, 244 Iowa 540, 546 , 57 N.W.2d 212, 216 (1953); In re Estate of Keeler, 225 Iowa 1349, 1354-55 , 282 N.W. 362, 365 (1938); In re Estate of Bernhard, 134 Iowa 603, 603 , 112 N.W. 86 , 86 (1907). *469 In the early 1960s, we began to depart from the rigid application of the identity rule and considered a number of cases under a “modified intention” approach. 2017Id.; see also In re Estate of Sprague, 244 Iowa 540, 546 , 57 N.W.2d 212, 216 (1953); In re Estate of Keeler, 225 Iowa 1349, 1354-55 , 282 N.W. 362, 365 (1938); In re Estate of Bernhard, 134 Iowa 603, 603 , 112 N.W. 86 , 86 (1907). *469 In the early 1960s, we began to depart from the rigid application of the identity rule and considered a number of cases under a “modified intention” approach. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Vorheesgreen2 sentences2010See State v. Vorhees, 248 S.W.3d 585, 590-91 (Mo.2008) (holding modus operandi is only appropriate to demonstrate identity because modus oper-andi used to corroborate the victim is “at base, propensity evidence masquerading under the well-recognized identity exception”). 2010See State v. Vorhees, 248 S.W.3d 585 , 590–91 (Mo. 2008) (holding modus operandi is only appropriate to demonstrate identity because modus operandi used to corroborate the victim is “at base, propensity evidence masquerading under the well-recognized identity exception”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Walshgreen2 sentences1987In order for the evidence to be admissible under the identity exception to rule 404(b), Nebinger must demonstrate that the prior act or crime occurred under circumstances “strikingly similar” to those in the present case or that the two respective sets of circumstances are alike in their “unique nature.” State v. Walsh, 318 N.W.2d 184, 186 (Iowa 1982). 1987In order for the evidence to be admissible under the identity exception to rule 404(b), Nebinger must demonstrate that the prior act or crime occurred under circumstances "strikingly similar" to those in the present case or that the two respective sets of circumstances are alike in their "unique nature." State v. Walsh, 318 N.W.2d 184, 186 (Iowa 1982). | 1 | 2 |
Chariton National Bank v. Whichergreen2 sentences1980This statement in Chariton National Bank v. Whicher, 163 Iowa 571, 579 , 145 N.W. 299, 302 (1914), still applies today: It is a matter of common observation to every court and practicing lawyer that these claims are almost universally stated in very general and informal terms, being often prepared without the aid of counsel, and no court thinks of applying thereto the strict and technical rules of the law of pleading as it is observed in ordinary court proceedings, and no amendment which is germane to a claim as originally stated, which does not destroy the substantial identity of the claim or 1980This statement in Chariton National Bank v. Whicher, 163 Iowa 571, 579 , 145 N.W. 299, 302 (1914), still applies today: It is a matter of common observation to every court and practicing lawyer that these claims are almost universally stated in very general and informal terms, being often prepared without the aid of counsel, and no court thinks of applying thereto the strict and technical rules of the law of pleading as it is observed in ordinary court proceedings, and no amendment which is germane to a claim as originally stated, which does not destroy the substantial identity of the claim or | 1 | 2 |
Bossen v. Hostettergreen2 sentences1980See Hankins v. Young, 174 Iowa 383 , 156 N.W. 380 (1916); accord, Bossen v. Hostetter, 243 Iowa 1241 , 55 N.W.2d 281 (1952). 1980See Hankins v. Young, 174 Iowa 383 , 156 N.W. 380 (1916); accord, Bossen v. Hostetter, 243 Iowa 1241 , 55 N.W.2d 281 (1952). | 1 | 1 |
Hankins v. Younggreen1 sentence1980See Hankins v. Young, 174 Iowa 383 , 156 N.W. 380 (1916); accord, Bossen v. Hostetter, 243 Iowa 1241 , 55 N.W.2d 281 (1952). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wollgast v. Henning
green
2 sentences2017Id.; see also In re Estate of Sprague, 244 Iowa 540, 546 , 57 N.W.2d 212, 216 (1953); In re Estate of Keeler, 225 Iowa 1349, 1354-55 , 282 N.W. 362, 365 (1938); In re Estate of Bernhard, 134 Iowa 603, 603 , 112 N.W. 86 , 86 (1907). *469 In the early 1960s, we began to depart from the rigid application of the identity rule and considered a number of cases under a “modified intention” approach. 2017Id.; see also In re Estate of Sprague, 244 Iowa 540, 546 , 57 N.W.2d 212, 216 (1953); In re Estate of Keeler, 225 Iowa 1349 , 1354–55, 282 N.W. 362, 365 (1938); In re Estate of Bernhard, 134 Iowa 603, 603 , 112 N.W. 86 , 86 (1907). 9 In the early 1960s, we began to depart from the rigid application of the identity rule and considered a number of cases under a “modified intention” approach. | 4 | 2007–2017 |
In Re Estate of Anton
green
2 sentences2017Id. 2017Anton, 731 N.W.2d at 23 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Bierstedt's Estate
green
2 sentences2007For example, in In re Estate of Bierstedt, 254 Iowa 772 , 119 N.W.2d 234 (1963), this court considered whether the sale by a guardian of specifically bequeathed real estate without the knowledge and consent of an incompetent testator caused ademption by extinction under the identity rule. 2007For example, in In re Estate of Bierstedt, 254 Iowa 772 , 119 N.W.2d 234 (1963), this court considered whether the sale by a guardian of specifically bequeathed real estate without the knowledge and consent of an incompetent testator caused ademption by extinction under the identity rule. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Estate of Wolfe
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 924 . 2007Id. at 924 . | 2 | 2007–2007 |
In Re the Accounting of National Bank & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1963In re Estate of Ireland, 257 N. Y. 155, 158 , 177 N.E. 405, 406 , the leading American case favoring the minority view, does not rest solely on the identity rule, but pointed out the probable intent of the testator in that the residuary legatees were the testator’s children and the specific legatee a stranger. 1963In re Estate of Ireland, 257 N. Y. 155, 158 , 177 N.E. 405, 406 , the leading American case favoring the minority view, does not rest solely on the identity rule, but pointed out the probable intent of the testator in that the residuary legatees were the testator’s children and the specific legatee a stranger. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Craig v. Estate of Craig
neutral
1 sentence1920Bank v. Whicher, 163 Iowa 571 : “It is á matter of common observation to every'court and practicing lawyer that these claims are almost universally stated in very general and informal terms, being often prepared without the aid of counsel, and no court thinks of applying thereto the strict and technical rules of the law of pleading as it is observed in ordinary court proceedings, and no amendment which is germane to a claim as originally stated, which does not destroy the substantial identity of the claim, or substitute some other new or different subject of the claimant’s demand, will deprive | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Wise v. Outtrim
green
1 sentence1914Wise v. Outtrim, 139 Iowa, 192 . | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.