11 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1942–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Board of Directors of Independent School District v. Greengreen2 sentences2009See In re Sodersten, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 572, 609 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (holding issues raised in petition for writ of habeas corpus became moot upon death of habeas petitioner). 10 Maghee’s attorney urges us to apply the public-interest exception that permits the court to address moot controversies: “When the issue presented is of substantial public interest there exists a permissible exception to the general rule that a case which has become moot or presents only an academic question will be dismissed on appeal.” Bd. of Dirs. v. Green, 259 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 147 N.W.2d 854, 856 (1967); see also S 2009See In re Sodersten, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 572, 609 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (holding issues raised in petition for writ of habeas corpus became moot upon death of habeas petitioner). 10 Maghee’s attorney urges us to apply the public-interest exception that permits the court to address moot controversies: “When the issue presented is of substantial public interest there exists a permissible exception to the general rule that a case which has become moot or presents only an academic question will be dismissed on appeal.” Bd. of Dirs. v. Green, 259 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 147 N.W.2d 854, 856 (1967); see also S | 3 | 4 |
In Re Soderstengreen2 sentences2009See In re Sodersten, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 572, 609 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (holding issues raised in petition for writ of habeas corpus became moot upon death of habeas petitioner). 10 Maghee’s attorney urges us to apply the public-interest exception that permits the court to address moot controversies: “When the issue presented is of substantial public interest there exists a permissible exception to the general rule that a case which has become moot or presents only an academic question will be dismissed on appeal.” Bd. of Dirs. v. Green, 259 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 147 N.W.2d 854, 856 (1967); see also S 2009See In re Sodersten, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 572, 609 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (holding issues raised in petition for writ of habeas corpus became moot upon death of habeas petitioner). 10 Maghee’s attorney urges us to apply the public-interest exception that permits the court to address moot controversies: “When the issue presented is of substantial public interest there exists a permissible exception to the general rule that a case which has become moot or presents only an academic question will be dismissed on appeal.” Bd. of Dirs. v. Green, 259 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 147 N.W.2d 854, 856 (1967); see also S | 2 | 2 |
Julian Toney v. Wcco Television, Midwest Cable and Satellite, Inc., Also Known as Wcco Tv, Channel 4, Also Known as Iowcco Tv, Channel 411green2 sentences2007See, e.g., Toney v. WCCO Tel., 85 F.3d 383, 393 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 , 107 S.Ct. 272 , 93 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986) (concluding that Minnesota would recognize defamation by implication); Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir.1993) (plaintiff was a public figure, yet the court noted that defamatory meaning may be communicated by direct reference or by implication); Saenz v. Playboy Enter., Inc., 841 F.2d 1309, 1314 (7th Cir.1988) (concluding that nothing in Supreme Court cases justifies denying a public official a *829 cause of action premised on defamatory i 2007See, e.g., Toney v. WCCO Tel., 85 F.3d 383, 393 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) (concluding that Minnesota would recognize defamation by implication); Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff was a public figure, yet the court noted that defamatory meaning may be communicated by direct reference or by implication); Saenz v. Playboy Enter., Inc., 841 F.2d 1309, 1314 (7th Cir. 1988) (concluding that nothing in Supreme Court cases justifies denying a public official a cause of action premised on defamatory innuendo); Thomas v. Los Angeles Time | 2 | 2 |
Adolph Saenz v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc. And Roger Morrisgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Toney v. WCCO Tel., 85 F.3d 383, 393 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 , 107 S.Ct. 272 , 93 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986) (concluding that Minnesota would recognize defamation by implication); Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir.1993) (plaintiff was a public figure, yet the court noted that defamatory meaning may be communicated by direct reference or by implication); Saenz v. Playboy Enter., Inc., 841 F.2d 1309, 1314 (7th Cir.1988) (concluding that nothing in Supreme Court cases justifies denying a public official a *829 cause of action premised on defamatory i 2007See, e.g., Toney v. WCCO Tel., 85 F.3d 383, 393 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) (concluding that Minnesota would recognize defamation by implication); Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff was a public figure, yet the court noted that defamatory meaning may be communicated by direct reference or by implication); Saenz v. Playboy Enter., Inc., 841 F.2d 1309, 1314 (7th Cir. 1988) (concluding that nothing in Supreme Court cases justifies denying a public official a cause of action premised on defamatory innuendo); Thomas v. Los Angeles Time | 2 | 2 |
Chapin v. Knight-Riddergreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Toney v. WCCO Tel., 85 F.3d 383, 393 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 , 107 S.Ct. 272 , 93 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986) (concluding that Minnesota would recognize defamation by implication); Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir.1993) (plaintiff was a public figure, yet the court noted that defamatory meaning may be communicated by direct reference or by implication); Saenz v. Playboy Enter., Inc., 841 F.2d 1309, 1314 (7th Cir.1988) (concluding that nothing in Supreme Court cases justifies denying a public official a *829 cause of action premised on defamatory i 2007See, e.g., Toney v. WCCO Tel., 85 F.3d 383, 393 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) (concluding that Minnesota would recognize defamation by implication); Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff was a public figure, yet the court noted that defamatory meaning may be communicated by direct reference or by implication); Saenz v. Playboy Enter., Inc., 841 F.2d 1309, 1314 (7th Cir. 1988) (concluding that nothing in Supreme Court cases justifies denying a public official a cause of action premised on defamatory innuendo); Thomas v. Los Angeles Time | 2 | 2 |
Thomas v. Los Angeles Times Communications, LLCgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Toney v. WCCO Tel., 85 F.3d 383, 393 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 , 107 S.Ct. 272 , 93 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986) (concluding that Minnesota would recognize defamation by implication); Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir.1993) (plaintiff was a public figure, yet the court noted that defamatory meaning may be communicated by direct reference or by implication); Saenz v. Playboy Enter., Inc., 841 F.2d 1309, 1314 (7th Cir.1988) (concluding that nothing in Supreme Court cases justifies denying a public official a *829 cause of action premised on defamatory i 2007See, e.g., Toney v. WCCO Tel., 85 F.3d 383, 393 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) (concluding that Minnesota would recognize defamation by implication); Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff was a public figure, yet the court noted that defamatory meaning may be communicated by direct reference or by implication); Saenz v. Playboy Enter., Inc., 841 F.2d 1309, 1314 (7th Cir. 1988) (concluding that nothing in Supreme Court cases justifies denying a public official a cause of action premised on defamatory innuendo); Thomas v. Los Angeles Time | 2 | 2 |
Norfolk Dredging Co. v. Secretary of Laborgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Toney v. WCCO Tel., 85 F.3d 383, 393 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 , 107 S.Ct. 272 , 93 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986) (concluding that Minnesota would recognize defamation by implication); Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir.1993) (plaintiff was a public figure, yet the court noted that defamatory meaning may be communicated by direct reference or by implication); Saenz v. Playboy Enter., Inc., 841 F.2d 1309, 1314 (7th Cir.1988) (concluding that nothing in Supreme Court cases justifies denying a public official a *829 cause of action premised on defamatory i 2007See, e.g., Toney v. WCCO Tel., 85 F.3d 383, 393 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) (concluding that Minnesota would recognize defamation by implication); Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir. 1993) (plaintiff was a public figure, yet the court noted that defamatory meaning may be communicated by direct reference or by implication); Saenz v. Playboy Enter., Inc., 841 F.2d 1309, 1314 (7th Cir. 1988) (concluding that nothing in Supreme Court cases justifies denying a public official a cause of action premised on defamatory innuendo); Thomas v. Los Angeles Time | 2 | 2 |
In Re P.L.green1 sentence2020See P.L., 778 N.W.2d at 41 . | 1 | 1 |
Janklow v. Newsweek, Inc.green2 sentences2007See, e.g., Toney v. WCCO Tel., 85 F.3d 383, 393 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 , 107 S.Ct. 272 , 93 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986) (concluding that Minnesota would recognize defamation by implication); Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir.1993) (plaintiff was a public figure, yet the court noted that defamatory meaning may be communicated by direct reference or by implication); Saenz v. Playboy Enter., Inc., 841 F.2d 1309, 1314 (7th Cir.1988) (concluding that nothing in Supreme Court cases justifies denying a public official a *829 cause of action premised on defamatory i 2007See, e.g., Toney v. WCCO Tel., 85 F.3d 383, 393 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 , 107 S.Ct. 272 , 93 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986) (concluding that Minnesota would recognize defamation by implication); Chapin v. Knight-Ridder, Inc., 993 F.2d 1087, 1092-93 (4th Cir.1993) (plaintiff was a public figure, yet the court noted that defamatory meaning may be communicated by direct reference or by implication); Saenz v. Playboy Enter., Inc., 841 F.2d 1309, 1314 (7th Cir.1988) (concluding that nothing in Supreme Court cases justifies denying a public official a *829 cause of action premised on defamatory i | 1 | 1 |
Romah v. Hygienic Sanitation Co.green2 sentences1998The primary means for determining the line between a pre-empted claim and a permissible claim is “whether one could reasonably foresee that the manufacturer, in seeking to avoid liability for the error, would choose to alter the product or the label.” Romah, 705 A.2d at 850-51 (citations omitted). 1998The primary means for determining the line between a pre-empted claim and a permissible claim is "whether one could reasonably foresee that the manufacturer, in seeking to avoid liability for the error, would choose to alter the product or the label." *219 Romah, 705 A.2d at 850-51 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Virginia Manor, Inc. v. City of Sioux Citygreen1 sentence1978See Virginia Manor, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, 261 N.W.2d 510, 514 (Iowa 1978); Catholic Char. of Arch. of Dubuque v. Zalesky, 232 N.W.2d 539, 543 (Iowa 1975). | 1 | 1 |
Catholic Charities of Archdiocese of Dubuque v. Zaleskygreen1 sentence1978See Virginia Manor, Inc. v. City of Sioux City, 261 N.W.2d 510, 514 (Iowa 1978); Catholic Char. of Arch. of Dubuque v. Zalesky, 232 N.W.2d 539, 543 (Iowa 1975). | 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. Laffey
green
1 sentence2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mann v. City of Marshalltown
green
1 sentence1999Id. at 313 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Wheelock
green
2 sentences1942State v. Wheelock, 218 Iowa 178, 184 , 254 N. W. 313, 317 ; State v. Kimes, 152 Iowa 240 , 132 N. W. 180 ; State v. Rowell, 172 Iowa 208 , 154 N. W. 488 ; State v. Arnold, 12 Iowa 479 ; Spalitto v. United States, 8 Cir., Mo., 39 F. 2d 782 ; annotation 71 A. L. 1942State v. Wheelock, 218 Iowa 178, 184 , 254 N. W. 313, 317 ; State v. Kimes, 152 Iowa 240 , 132 N. W. 180 ; State v. Rowell, 172 Iowa 208 , 154 N. W. 488 ; State v. Arnold, 12 Iowa 479 ; Spalitto v. United States, 8 Cir., Mo., 39 F. 2d 782 ; annotation 71 A. L. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Spalitto v. United States
neutral
1 sentence1942State v. Wheelock, 218 Iowa 178, 184 , 254 N. W. 313, 317 ; State v. Kimes, 152 Iowa 240 , 132 N. W. 180 ; State v. Rowell, 172 Iowa 208 , 154 N. W. 488 ; State v. Arnold, 12 Iowa 479 ; Spalitto v. United States, 8 Cir., Mo., 39 F. 2d 782 ; annotation 71 A. L. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Byington v. Wood
green
1 sentence1942State v. Wheelock, 218 Iowa 178, 184 , 254 N. W. 313, 317 ; State v. Kimes, 152 Iowa 240 , 132 N. W. 180 ; State v. Rowell, 172 Iowa 208 , 154 N. W. 488 ; State v. Arnold, 12 Iowa 479 ; Spalitto v. United States, 8 Cir., Mo., 39 F. 2d 782 ; annotation 71 A. L. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
State v. Kimes
green
2 sentences1942State v. Wheelock, 218 Iowa 178, 184 , 254 N. W. 313, 317 ; State v. Kimes, 152 Iowa 240 , 132 N. W. 180 ; State v. Rowell, 172 Iowa 208 , 154 N. W. 488 ; State v. Arnold, 12 Iowa 479 ; Spalitto v. United States, 8 Cir., Mo., 39 F. 2d 782 ; annotation 71 A. L. 1942State v. Wheelock, 218 Iowa 178, 184 , 254 N. W. 313, 317 ; State v. Kimes, 152 Iowa 240 , 132 N. W. 180 ; State v. Rowell, 172 Iowa 208 , 154 N. W. 488 ; State v. Arnold, 12 Iowa 479 ; Spalitto v. United States, 8 Cir., Mo., 39 F. 2d 782 ; annotation 71 A. L. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
State v. Rowell
green
1 sentence1942State v. Wheelock, 218 Iowa 178, 184 , 254 N. W. 313, 317 ; State v. Kimes, 152 Iowa 240 , 132 N. W. 180 ; State v. Rowell, 172 Iowa 208 , 154 N. W. 488 ; State v. Arnold, 12 Iowa 479 ; Spalitto v. United States, 8 Cir., Mo., 39 F. 2d 782 ; annotation 71 A. L. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.