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.
11 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tubbsgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Tubbs, 690 N.W.2d 911, 915 (Iowa 2005) (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard when the defendant claimed the court improperly allowed several voir dire questions); Windsor, 316 N.W.2d at 685–86 (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard when the defendant claimed the court improperly restricted voir dire questioning and interjected its own comments). 4 3Martin’s appellate counsel did not represent him at trial. 4Although defense counsel did not couch the mistrial motion in constitutional terms and did not mention any provision of either the United States Constitution or the 11 I 2016See State v. Tubbs, 690 N.W.2d 911, 915 (Iowa 2005) (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard when the defendant claimed the court improperly allowed several voir dire .questions); Windsor, 316 N.W.2d at 685-86 (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard when the defendant claimed the court improperly restricted voir ■ dire questioning and interjected its own comments). 4 III. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Windsorgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Tubbs, 690 N.W.2d 911, 915 (Iowa 2005) (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard when the defendant claimed the court improperly allowed several voir dire questions); Windsor, 316 N.W.2d at 685–86 (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard when the defendant claimed the court improperly restricted voir dire questioning and interjected its own comments). 4 3Martin’s appellate counsel did not represent him at trial. 4Although defense counsel did not couch the mistrial motion in constitutional terms and did not mention any provision of either the United States Constitution or the 11 I 2016See State v. Tubbs, 690 N.W.2d 911, 915 (Iowa 2005) (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard when the defendant claimed the court improperly allowed several voir dire .questions); Windsor, 316 N.W.2d at 685-86 (applying an abuse-of-discretion standard when the defendant claimed the court improperly restricted voir ■ dire questioning and interjected its own comments). 4 III. | 1 | 2 |
Goodrich v. Stategreen1 sentence2018While “a court must determine a criminal defendant’s ability to pay before entering an order requiring such defendant to pay criminal restitution,” Goodrich v. State, 608 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Iowa 2000), here, the district court has not yet ordered the amount or plan of restitution. | 1 | 1 |
Meier v. SENECAUT IIIgreen1 sentence2017See id. | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Kevin Deshay Ambrosegreen1 sentence2017See State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550, 555 (Iowa 2015). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gullivergreen2 sentences2016See State v. Gulliver, 163 Iowa 123, 138 , 142 N.W. 948, 954 (1913) (“Defects of argumentation and reasoning when apparent carry with thém their own antidote, and, where the poison is more subtle, it may be safely left with opposing counsel to deal with.”).' The district court concluded questions about specific witnesses went “a little further than talking about just general opinions of law enforcement.” The court also observed that the prosecutor’s hypothetical questions about drug sales encroached “a little too much into testing how a prospective juror ... might view the facts of the State’s 2016See State v. Gulliver, 163 Iowa 123, 138 , 142 N.W. 948, 954 (1913) (“Defects of argumentation and reasoning when apparent carry with thém their own antidote, and, where the poison is more subtle, it may be safely left with opposing counsel to deal with.”).' The district court concluded questions about specific witnesses went “a little further than talking about just general opinions of law enforcement.” The court also observed that the prosecutor’s hypothetical questions about drug sales encroached “a little too much into testing how a prospective juror ... might view the facts of the State’s | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hawkinsgreen1 sentence2015See State v. Hawkins, 620 N.W.2d 256, 258-59 (Iowa 2000). | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Wendell Karl Harringtongreen2 sentences2011Id. at 50 . 2011See, e.g., Harrington, 800 N.W.2d at 48-51 (distinguishing admissibility rules between convictions within-rule 5.609(a)(1) and (2) in accord with the rule’s text). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hackneygreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., Daly, 623 N.W.2d at 802 -03 (citing Martin’s factors as controlling); Axiotis, 569 N.W.2d at 816 (same); Hackney, 397 N.W.2d at 726-27 (Iowa 1986) (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dalygreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., Daly, 623 N.W.2d at 802 -03 (citing Martin’s factors as controlling); Axiotis, 569 N.W.2d at 816 (same); Hackney, 397 N.W.2d at 726-27 (Iowa 1986) (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Axiotisgreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., Daly, 623 N.W.2d at 802 -03 (citing Martin’s factors as controlling); Axiotis, 569 N.W.2d at 816 (same); Hackney, 397 N.W.2d at 726-27 (Iowa 1986) (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ratergreen2 sentences2000See State v. Rater, 568 N.W.2d 655, 657 (Iowa 1997). 2000See State v. Rater, 568 N.W.2d 655, 657 (Iowa 1997). | 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. Martin
green
2 sentences2015Although the second (clear proof of occurrence) and third (strength or weakness of prior-acts evidence) Martin factors tend to lend support for admission of the evidence, the fourth factor also weighs against admission of the evidence. 704 N.W.2d at 672 . 2015Although the second (clear proof of occurrence) and third (strength or weakness of prior-acts evidence) Martin factors tend to lend support for admission of the evidence, the fourth factor also weighs against admission of the evidence. 704 N.W.2d at 672 . | 3 | 2015–2015 |
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.