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 1 courts 1980–2025 2 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 Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board Vs. Thomas E. Lustgraafgreen2 sentences2015Prof'l Conduct 32:8.4(c). “[A] lawyer makes a misrepresentation in violation of our ethical rules when his income exceeds the sums requiring the filing of a tax return and he fails to file a return.” Lustgraaf, 792 N.W.2d at 299 . 2015Prof’l Conduct 32:8 .4(c). “[A] lawyer makes a misrepresentation in violation of our ethical rules when his income exceeds the sums requiring the filing of a tax return and he fails to file a return.” Lustgraaf, 792 N.W.2d at 299 . | 2 | 4 |
Hubbard v. Stategreen2 sentences2012In Hubbard v. State, 163 N.W.2d 904 (Iowa 1969), we held the misrepresentation exception barred a plaintiffs claim that the State negligently diagnosed the plaintiffs herd with a disease even though they were not so infected. 163 N.W.2d at 905, 912 . 2012In Hubbard v. State, 163 N.W.2d 904 (Iowa 1969), we held the misrepresentation exception barred a plaintiffs claim that the State negligently diagnosed the plaintiffs herd with a disease even though they were not so infected. 163 N.W.2d at 905, 912 . | 2 | 3 |
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Michael J. Crossgreen2 sentences2016Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Cross, 861 N.W.2d 211, 223 (Iowa 2015); Lustgraaf, 792 N.W.2d at 299–300. 2016Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Cross, 861 N.W.2d 211, 223 (Iowa 2015); Lustgraaf, 792 N.W.2d at 299–300. | 2 | 2 |
Block v. Nealgreen2 sentences1983The misrepresentation exception is addressed in two Supreme Court decisions, United States v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696 , 81 S.Ct. 1294 , 6 L.Ed.2d 614 (1961), and Block v. Neal, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1089 , 75 L.Ed.2d 67 (1983). 1983The misrepresentation exception is addressed in two Supreme Court decisions, United States v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696 , 81 S.Ct. 1294 , 6 L.Ed.2d 614 (1961), and Block v. Neal, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1089 , 75 L.Ed.2d 67 (1983). | 1 | 2 |
Adam v. Mount Pleasant Bank & Trust Co.green2 sentences2012In Adam v. Mount Pleasant Bank & Trust Co., 340 N.W.2d 251 (Iowa 1983), where farmers alleged they lost grain because the Iowa State Commerce Commission negligently licensed an insolvent grain company, we determined the misrepresentation exception applies if the alleged damages were caused by a negligent communication of information. 340 N.W.2d at 251, 253 . 2012In Adam v. Mount Pleasant Bank & Trust Co., 340 N.W.2d 251 (Iowa 1983), where farmers alleged they lost grain because the Iowa State Commerce Commission negligently licensed an insolvent grain company, we determined the misrepresentation exception applies if the alleged damages were caused by a negligent communication of information. 340 N.W.2d at 251, 253 . | 1 | 2 |
Iowa Electric Co. v. State Board of Controlgreen2 sentences2025Co. v. State Bd. of Control, 266 N.W. 543, 544 (Iowa 1936) (“The doctrine that a state cannot be sued in its sovereign capacity is so well settled that it requires neither discussion nor citation of authorities. 2025Co. v. State Bd. of Control, 266 N.W. 543, 544 (Iowa 1936) (“The doctrine that a state cannot be sued in its sovereign capacity is so well settled that it requires neither discussion nor citation of authorities. | 1 | 1 |
Trobaugh v. Sondaggreen2 sentences2025First, we have repeatedly recognized that sovereign immunity precludes “tort damage claims against the State and state employees acting within the scope of their employment.” Wagner, 952 N.W.2d at 856 (emphasis added); see also Trobaugh, 668 N.W.2d at 584–85 (analyzing whether a claim of legal malpractice against a state employee assistant public defender is the functional equivalent of a cause of action listed in what is now section 669.14(4)); Hawkeye By–Prods., Inc. v. State, 419 N.W.2d 410, 410–12 (Iowa 1988) (en banc) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a misrepresentation claim 2025First, we have repeatedly recognized that sovereign immunity precludes “tort damage claims against the State and state employees acting within the scope of their employment.” Wagner, 952 N.W.2d at 856 (emphasis added); see also Trobaugh, 668 N.W.2d at 584–85 (analyzing whether a claim of legal malpractice against a state employee assistant public defender is the functional equivalent of a cause of action listed in what is now section 669.14(4)); Hawkeye By–Prods., Inc. v. State, 419 N.W.2d 410 , 410–12 (Iowa 1988) (en banc) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a misrepresentation claim | 1 | 1 |
Iowa Supreme Court Board of Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Sunleafgreen1 sentence2015Prof'l Conduct 32:8.4(c). “[A] lawyer makes a misrepresentation in violation of our ethical rules when his income exceeds the sums requiring the filing of a tax return and he fails to file a return.” Lustgraaf, 792 N.W.2d at 299 . | 1 | 1 |
Thomas R. Baroni and Jon E. Baroni v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., JBP Acquisitions, 224 F.3d at 1266 ; see also Schneider v. United States, 936 F.2d 956, 960 (7th Cir.1991) (holding the misrepresentation exception barred plaintiffs’ claims based on the government’s misrepresentation to a private builder from whom the plaintiffs purchased their homes); Baroni v. United States, 662 F.2d 287, 288-89 (5th Cir.1981) (holding the misrepresentation exception barred plaintiffs’ claims where the government made a misrepresentation to a real estate developer and not to the plaintiffs). 2012See, e.g., JBP Acquisitions, 224 F.3d at 1266 ; see also Schneider v. United States, 936 F.2d 956, 960 (7th Cir.1991) (holding the misrepresentation exception barred plaintiffs’ claims based on the government’s misrepresentation to a private builder from whom the plaintiffs purchased their homes); Baroni v. United States, 662 F.2d 287, 288-89 (5th Cir.1981) (holding the misrepresentation exception barred plaintiffs’ claims where the government made a misrepresentation to a real estate developer and not to the plaintiffs). | 1 | 1 |
Ellen Schneider, Eugene Schneider, David Sleight v. Usa, Clayton K. Yeutter, Neal Sox Johnsongreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., JBP Acquisitions, 224 F.3d at 1266 ; see also Schneider v. United States, 936 F.2d 956, 960 (7th Cir.1991) (holding the misrepresentation exception barred plaintiffs’ claims based on the government’s misrepresentation to a private builder from whom the plaintiffs purchased their homes); Baroni v. United States, 662 F.2d 287, 288-89 (5th Cir.1981) (holding the misrepresentation exception barred plaintiffs’ claims where the government made a misrepresentation to a real estate developer and not to the plaintiffs). 2012See, e.g., JBP Acquisitions, 224 F.3d at 1266 ; see also Schneider v. United States, 936 F.2d 956, 960 (7th Cir.1991) (holding the misrepresentation exception barred plaintiffs’ claims based on the government’s misrepresentation to a private builder from whom the plaintiffs purchased their homes); Baroni v. United States, 662 F.2d 287, 288-89 (5th Cir.1981) (holding the misrepresentation exception barred plaintiffs’ claims where the government made a misrepresentation to a real estate developer and not to the plaintiffs). | 1 | 1 |
Jbp Acquisitions, Lp v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., JBP Acquisitions, 224 F.3d at 1266 ; see also Schneider v. United States, 936 F.2d 956, 960 (7th Cir.1991) (holding the misrepresentation exception barred plaintiffs’ claims based on the government’s misrepresentation to a private builder from whom the plaintiffs purchased their homes); Baroni v. United States, 662 F.2d 287, 288-89 (5th Cir.1981) (holding the misrepresentation exception barred plaintiffs’ claims where the government made a misrepresentation to a real estate developer and not to the plaintiffs). 2012See, e.g., JBP Acquisitions, 224 F.3d at 1266 ; see also Schneider v. United States, 936 F.2d 956, 960 (7th Cir.1991) (holding the misrepresentation exception barred plaintiffs’ claims based on the government’s misrepresentation to a private builder from whom the plaintiffs purchased their homes); Baroni v. United States, 662 F.2d 287, 288-89 (5th Cir.1981) (holding the misrepresentation exception barred plaintiffs’ claims where the government made a misrepresentation to a real estate developer and not to the plaintiffs). | 1 | 1 |
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Iversengreen1 sentence2010Id. at 795 ; Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary *300 Bd. v. Iversen, 723 N.W.2d 806, 810 (Iowa 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Stategreen1 sentence1983See Lewis v. State, 256 N.W.2d 181, 192-93 (Iowa 1977). | 1 | 1 |
Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co.green2 sentences1980Decisions from other jurisdictions in accord with this view include Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597, 601 (1976) (“Negligence in reliance upon a misrepresentation is not a defense where the representation was intentionally made to induce reliance upon it.”); Blynn v. Ralbag, 201 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.App.1967); Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co., 110 Ill.App.2d 415, 429 , 249 N.E.2d 729, 736 (1969); Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann, 166 Ind.App. 181, 190 , 334 N.E.2d 724, 729 (1975) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable prudence in business t 1980Decisions from other jurisdictions in accord with this view include Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597, 601 (1976) (“Negligence in reliance upon a misrepresentation is not a defense where the representation was intentionally made to induce reliance upon it.”); Blynn v. Ralbag, 201 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.App.1967); Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co., 110 Ill.App.2d 415, 429 , 249 N.E.2d 729, 736 (1969); Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann, 166 Ind.App. 181, 190 , 334 N.E.2d 724, 729 (1975) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable prudence in business t | 1 | 1 |
Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roanngreen2 sentences1980Decisions from other jurisdictions in accord with this view include Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597, 601 (1976) (“Negligence in reliance upon a misrepresentation is not a defense where the representation was intentionally made to induce reliance upon it.”); Blynn v. Ralbag, 201 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.App.1967); Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co., 110 Ill.App.2d 415, 429 , 249 N.E.2d 729, 736 (1969); Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann, 166 Ind.App. 181, 190 , 334 N.E.2d 724, 729 (1975) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable prudence in business t 1980Decisions from other jurisdictions in accord with this view include Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597, 601 (1976) (“Negligence in reliance upon a misrepresentation is not a defense where the representation was intentionally made to induce reliance upon it.”); Blynn v. Ralbag, 201 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.App.1967); Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co., 110 Ill.App.2d 415, 429 , 249 N.E.2d 729, 736 (1969); Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann, 166 Ind.App. 181, 190 , 334 N.E.2d 724, 729 (1975) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable prudence in business t | 1 | 1 |
Public Finance Corporation v. Scribnergreen2 sentences1980Decisions from other jurisdictions in accord with this view include Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597, 601 (1976) (“Negligence in reliance upon a misrepresentation is not a defense where the representation was intentionally made to induce reliance upon it.”); Blynn v. Ralbag, 201 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.App.1967); Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co., 110 Ill.App.2d 415, 429 , 249 N.E.2d 729, 736 (1969); Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann, 166 Ind.App. 181, 190 , 334 N.E.2d 724, 729 (1975) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable prudence in business t 1980Decisions from other jurisdictions in accord with this view include Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597, 601 (1976) (“Negligence in reliance upon a misrepresentation is not a defense where the representation was intentionally made to induce reliance upon it.”); Blynn v. Ralbag, 201 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.App.1967); Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co., 110 Ill.App.2d 415, 429 , 249 N.E.2d 729, 736 (1969); Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann, 166 Ind.App. 181, 190 , 334 N.E.2d 724, 729 (1975) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable prudence in business t | 1 | 1 |
Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co.green2 sentences1980Decisions from other jurisdictions in accord with this view include Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597, 601 (1976) (“Negligence in reliance upon a misrepresentation is not a defense where the representation was intentionally made to induce reliance upon it.”); Blynn v. Ralbag, 201 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.App.1967); Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co., 110 Ill.App.2d 415, 429 , 249 N.E.2d 729, 736 (1969); Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann, 166 Ind.App. 181, 190 , 334 N.E.2d 724, 729 (1975) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable prudence in business t 1980Decisions from other jurisdictions in accord with this view include Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597, 601 (1976) (“Negligence in reliance upon a misrepresentation is not a defense where the representation was intentionally made to induce reliance upon it.”); Blynn v. Ralbag, 201 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.App.1967); Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co., 110 Ill.App.2d 415, 429 , 249 N.E.2d 729, 736 (1969); Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann, 166 Ind.App. 181, 190 , 334 N.E.2d 724, 729 (1975) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable prudence in business t | 1 | 1 |
Wolf v. Brungardtgreen2 sentences1980Decisions from other jurisdictions in accord with this view include Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597, 601 (1976) (“Negligence in reliance upon a misrepresentation is not a defense where the representation was intentionally made to induce reliance upon it.”); Blynn v. Ralbag, 201 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.App.1967); Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co., 110 Ill.App.2d 415, 429 , 249 N.E.2d 729, 736 (1969); Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann, 166 Ind.App. 181, 190 , 334 N.E.2d 724, 729 (1975) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable prudence in business t 1980Decisions from other jurisdictions in accord with this view include Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597, 601 (1976) (“Negligence in reliance upon a misrepresentation is not a defense where the representation was intentionally made to induce reliance upon it.”); Blynn v. Ralbag, 201 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.App.1967); Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co., 110 Ill.App.2d 415, 429 , 249 N.E.2d 729, 736 (1969); Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann, 166 Ind.App. 181, 190 , 334 N.E.2d 724, 729 (1975) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable prudence in business t | 1 | 1 |
Winn v. McCulloch Corp.green2 sentences1980Decisions from other jurisdictions in accord with this view include Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597, 601 (1976) (“Negligence in reliance upon a misrepresentation is not a defense where the representation was intentionally made to induce reliance upon it.”); Blynn v. Ralbag, 201 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.App.1967); Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co., 110 Ill.App.2d 415, 429 , 249 N.E.2d 729, 736 (1969); Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann, 166 Ind.App. 181, 190 , 334 N.E.2d 724, 729 (1975) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable prudence in business t 1980Decisions from other jurisdictions in accord with this view include Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597, 601 (1976) (“Negligence in reliance upon a misrepresentation is not a defense where the representation was intentionally made to induce reliance upon it.”); Blynn v. Ralbag, 201 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.App.1967); Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co., 110 Ill.App.2d 415, 429 , 249 N.E.2d 729, 736 (1969); Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann, 166 Ind.App. 181, 190 , 334 N.E.2d 724, 729 (1975) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable prudence in business t | 1 | 1 |
Crofford v. Bowdengreen1 sentence1980Decisions from other jurisdictions in accord with this view include Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597, 601 (1976) (“Negligence in reliance upon a misrepresentation is not a defense where the representation was intentionally made to induce reliance upon it.”); Blynn v. Ralbag, 201 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.App.1967); Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co., 110 Ill.App.2d 415, 429 , 249 N.E.2d 729, 736 (1969); Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann, 166 Ind.App. 181, 190 , 334 N.E.2d 724, 729 (1975) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable prudence in business t | 1 | 1 |
Blynn v. Ralbaggreen1 sentence1980Decisions from other jurisdictions in accord with this view include Winn v. McCulloch Corp., 60 Cal.App.3d 663, 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 597, 601 (1976) (“Negligence in reliance upon a misrepresentation is not a defense where the representation was intentionally made to induce reliance upon it.”); Blynn v. Ralbag, 201 So.2d 611, 613 (Fla.App.1967); Bergman & Lefkow Insurance Agency v. Flash Cab Co., 110 Ill.App.2d 415, 429 , 249 N.E.2d 729, 736 (1969); Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann, 166 Ind.App. 181, 190 , 334 N.E.2d 724, 729 (1975) (“[T]he requirement of reasonable prudence in business t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hawkeye By-Products, Inc. v. State
green
2 sentences2025First, we have repeatedly recognized that sovereign immunity precludes “tort damage claims against the State and state employees acting within the scope of their employment.” Wagner, 952 N.W.2d at 856 (emphasis added); see also Trobaugh, 668 N.W.2d at 584–85 (analyzing whether a claim of legal malpractice against a state employee assistant public defender is the functional equivalent of a cause of action listed in what is now section 669.14(4)); Hawkeye By–Prods., Inc. v. State, 419 N.W.2d 410, 410–12 (Iowa 1988) (en banc) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a misrepresentation claim 2025First, we have repeatedly recognized that sovereign immunity precludes “tort damage claims against the State and state employees acting within the scope of their employment.” Wagner, 952 N.W.2d at 856 (emphasis added); see also Trobaugh, 668 N.W.2d at 584–85 (analyzing whether a claim of legal malpractice against a state employee assistant public defender is the functional equivalent of a cause of action listed in what is now section 669.14(4)); Hawkeye By–Prods., Inc. v. State, 419 N.W.2d 410 , 410–12 (Iowa 1988) (en banc) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a misrepresentation claim | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct of the Iowa State Bar Ass'n v. Ramey
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 572 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board Vs. Jeffrey Fields
green
1 sentence2010Id. at 795 ; Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary *300 Bd. v. Iversen, 723 N.W.2d 806, 810 (Iowa 2006). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
United States v. Neustadt
green
2 sentences1983The misrepresentation exception is addressed in two Supreme Court decisions, United States v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696 , 81 S.Ct. 1294 , 6 L.Ed.2d 614 (1961), and Block v. Neal, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1089 , 75 L.Ed.2d 67 (1983). 1983The misrepresentation exception is addressed in two Supreme Court decisions, United States v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696 , 81 S.Ct. 1294 , 6 L.Ed.2d 614 (1961), and Block v. Neal, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 1089 , 75 L.Ed.2d 67 (1983). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Cross Brothers Meat Packers, Inc. v. United States
green
1 sentence1983In holding that Neal foreclosed the government’s reliance on the misrepresentation exception, the court said: “The meat was irrevocably devalued when the grade was placed upon it; its value was not affected by Cross’ reliance on government state *254 ments.” 705 F.2d at 684 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Robert L. Preston v. United States
green
1 sentence1983In the present case, the State places particular reliance on Neustadt and Preston v. United States, 596 F.2d 232 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 915 , 100 S.Ct. 228 , 62 L.Ed.2d 169 (1979). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Marquette v. United States
green
1 sentence1983In the present case, the State places particular reliance on Neustadt and Preston v. United States, 596 F.2d 232 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 915 , 100 S.Ct. 228 , 62 L.Ed.2d 169 (1979). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Preston v. United States
green
1 sentence1983In the present case, the State places particular reliance on Neustadt and Preston v. United States, 596 F.2d 232 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 915 , 100 S.Ct. 228 , 62 L.Ed.2d 169 (1979). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Steelman v. Colorado
green
1 sentence1983In the present case, the State places particular reliance on Neustadt and Preston v. United States, 596 F.2d 232 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 915 , 100 S.Ct. 228 , 62 L.Ed.2d 169 (1979). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.