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 2015–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Shannon and Danny NELSON, Individually, and on Behalf of E.N. F/K/A E.N., a Minor, Appellees, v. Lynn M. LINDAMAN, Lynn M. Lindaman, M.D., P.L.C. D/B/A Lindaman Orthopaedic, and Mercy Medical Center—Des Moines, Appellantsgreen2 sentences2026Id. at 66–67. 5 “Summary judgment is an important procedure in statutory immunity cases because a key purpose of the immunity is to avoid costly litigation, and that legislative goal is thwarted when claims subject to immunity proceed to trial.” Nelson v. Lindaman, 867 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2015). 2024“Summary judgment is an important procedure in statutory immunity cases because a key purpose of the immunity is to avoid costly litigation, and that legislative goal is thwarted when claims subject to immunity proceed to trial.” Nelson, 867 N.W.2d at 7 . | 4 | 7 |
Harlow v. Fitzgeraldgreen2 sentences2021See Plumhoff v. Rickard, [ 572 U.S. 765, 772 ] (2014) (“[T]his [immunity] question could not be effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment because by that time the immunity from standing trial will have been irretrievably lost.”); Hlubek[ v. Pelecky], 701 N.W.2d [93,] 98 [(Iowa 2005)] (noting statutory immunity removes the “‘fear of being sued’” and affirming summary judgment (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 814 (1982))). 2021See Plumhoff v. Rickard, [572] U.S. [765], [772-73] (2014) (“[T]his [immunity] question could not be effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment because by that time the immunity from standing trial will have been irretrievably lost.”); Hlubek v. Pelecky, 701 N.W.2d [93,] 98 [(Iowa 2005)] (noting statutory immunity removes the “‘fear of being sued’” and affirming summary judgment (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 814 (1982))). | 4 | 4 |
Plumhoff v. Rickardgreen2 sentences2021See Plumhoff v. Rickard, [ 572 U.S. 765, 772 ] (2014) (“[T]his [immunity] question could not be effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment because by that time the immunity from standing trial will have been irretrievably lost.”); Hlubek[ v. Pelecky], 701 N.W.2d [93,] 98 [(Iowa 2005)] (noting statutory immunity removes the “‘fear of being sued’” and affirming summary judgment (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 814 (1982))). 2020See Plumhoff v. Rickard, ___ U.S. ___,___, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2019 , 188 L.Ed.2d 1056, 1064 (2014) (“[T]his [immunity] question could not be effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment because by that time the immunity from standing trial will have been irretrievably lost.”); Hlubek, 701 N.W.2d at 98 (noting statutory immunity removes the “‘fear of being sued’” and affirming summary judgment (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 814 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396, 408 (1982))). | 4 | 4 |
Hlubek v. Peleckygreen2 sentences2020See Plumhoff v. Rickard, ___ U.S. ___,___, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2019 , 188 L.Ed.2d 1056, 1064 (2014) (“[T]his [immunity] question could not be effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment because by that time the immunity from standing trial will have been irretrievably lost.”); Hlubek, 701 N.W.2d at 98 (noting statutory immunity removes the “‘fear of being sued’” and affirming summary judgment (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 814 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396, 408 (1982))). 2015See Plumhoff v. Rickard, — U.S.-, —, 134 S.Ct. 2012, 2019 , 188 L.Ed.2d 1056, 1064 (2014) (“[T]his [immunity] question could not be effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment because by that time the immunity from standing trial will have been irretrievably lost.”); Hlubek, 701 N.W.2d at 98 (noting statutory immunity removes the “ ‘fear of being sued’ ” and affirming summary judgment (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 814 ; 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396, 408 (1982))). | 2 | 2 |
Dickerson v. Mertzgreen1 sentence2020Id. (citations omitted) (quoting Dickerson v. Mertz, 547 N.W.2d 208, 215 (Iowa 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.