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 1979–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Andrews v. Strublegreen2 sentences2026To meet the timeliness requirement, claims of errors during closing arguments must be urged not later than “the close of the argument in motion for mistrial made before submission to the jury.” Kinseth, 913 N.W.2d at 67 (quoting Andrews v. Struble, 178 N.W.2d 391, 402 (Iowa 1970)). 2026To meet the timeliness requirement, claims of errors during closing arguments must be urged not later than “the close of the argument in motion for mistrial made before submission to the jury.” Kinseth, 913 N.W.2d at 67 (quoting Andrews v. Struble, 178 N.W.2d 391, 402 (Iowa 1970)). | 1 | 1 |
Harrington v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Harrington, 659 N.W.2d at 514 (determining first whether the PCR claim fell within the section 822.3 ground-of-fact exception and, having found it did, considering the Brady challenge on its merits). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen1 sentence2014See State v. Anderson, 308 N.W.2d 42, 50 (Iowa 1981) (“[N]o express sanction is provided for a violation of [rule 2.24(3)(f)]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sergeant Bluff-Luton School District v. City Council of Sioux City
green
2 sentences2006This path vitiates the 30-day time limit created by I.R.C.P. 1.1402(3) and defeats the public policy considerations noted in Sergeant Bluff-Luton [School District v. City Council of Sioux City, 605 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 2000) ], favoring prompt resolution of challenges to city decisions. 2006This path vitiates the 30-day time limit created by I.R.C.P. 1.1402(3) and defeats the public policy considerations noted in Sergeant Bluff- Luton [School District v. City Council of Sioux City, 605 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 2000)], favoring prompt resolution of challenges to city decisions. | 3 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Bradley
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 212 . 2010Id. at 212 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Shari Kinseth and Ricky Kinseth, Coexecutors of the Estate of Larry Kinseth, and Shari Kinseth Individually v. Weil-McLain and State of Iowa ex rel. Civil Reparations Trust Fund
green
2 sentences2026To meet the timeliness requirement, claims of errors during closing arguments must be urged not later than “the close of the argument in motion for mistrial made before submission to the jury.” Kinseth, 913 N.W.2d at 67 (quoting Andrews v. Struble, 178 N.W.2d 391, 402 (Iowa 1970)). 2026To meet the timeliness requirement, claims of errors during closing arguments must be urged not later than “the close of the argument in motion for mistrial made before submission to the jury.” Kinseth, 913 N.W.2d at 67 (quoting Andrews v. Struble, 178 N.W.2d 391, 402 (Iowa 1970)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State of Iowa v. Kelvin Plain Sr.
green
1 sentence2020To support the timeliness of his claim, he raised our supreme court’s decision in Plain, 898 N.W.2d at 821– 28, which abandoned the exclusive use of absolute disparity to permit multiple analytical models to examine the validity of the composition of a jury pool. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In RE the Detention of Harold Johnson, Harold Johnson
green
1 sentence2016In Johnson, the court determined the violation of the timeliness requirement did not entitle the appellant to discharge because it “would run counter to the chapter’s framework and the legislature’s expressed purpose.” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hills Bank & Trust Co. v. Converse
green
1 sentence2011Hills Bank & Trust Co., 772 N.W.2d at 771 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
United States v. Wilroy Reid
green
2 sentences1979In United States v. Reid, 251 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. 1958), the court considered the timeliness of a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 1979In United States v. Reid, 251 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. 1958), the court considered the timeliness of a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.