11 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1931–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Christie v. Rolscreen Co.green2 sentences2016“Subject matter jurisdiction is the power ‘of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong, not merely the particular case then occupying the court’s attention.’” Klinge v. Bentien, 725 N.W.2d 13, 15 (Iowa 2006) (quoting Christie v. Rolscreen Co., 448 N.W.2d 447, 450 (Iowa 1989)); Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim must be conferred by a constitutional or statutory grant. 2016Id. | 1 | 3 |
State v. A-1 DISPOSALgreen2 sentences2018See Iowa Code § 801.4 (11)(d), (e), (f), (g), (i). 7 Iowa Code to inspecting for registration, weight, size, load and safety violations.” State v. A-1 Disposal, 415 N.W.2d 595, 599 (Iowa 1987) (citing Iowa Code §§ 321.476 , .477, .492 (1985)). 2018We read section 321.492 as authorizing IDOT MVE officers "to serve a summons or memorandum of traffic violation" when the subject matter of the violation is otherwise within their enforcement power. 1 *379 Notably, even after the 1976 Criminal Code was adopted, we held that "DOT officers' power to intrude on individuals is strictly limited by the Iowa Code to inspecting for registration, weight, size, load and safety violations." State v. A-1 Disposal , 415 N.W.2d 595 , 599 (Iowa 1987) (citing Iowa Code §§ 321.476 , .477, .492 (1985) ). | 1 | 2 |
Klinge v. Bentiengreen1 sentence2016“Subject matter jurisdiction is the power ‘of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the proceedings in question belong, not merely the particular case then occupying the court’s attention.’” Klinge v. Bentien, 725 N.W.2d 13, 15 (Iowa 2006) (quoting Christie v. Rolscreen Co., 448 N.W.2d 447, 450 (Iowa 1989)); Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim must be conferred by a constitutional or statutory grant. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Skeddlegreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2170-71 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141, 154 (1975) (stating that defendant, “by electing to present [an] investigator as a witness, waived the [work product] privilege with respect to matters covered in [the investigator’s] file”); Pittman, 129 F.3d at 988 (stating “that disclo *808 sure to an adversary waives work product protection as to items actually disclosed,” but rejecting argument that by voluntarily disclosing photographs and measurements of railroad crossing accident scene, defendant waived work product privilege for entire con | 1 | 1 |
In Re Martin Marietta Corporation, United States of America v. William C. Pollardgreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2170-71 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141, 154 (1975) (stating that defendant, “by electing to present [an] investigator as a witness, waived the [work product] privilege with respect to matters covered in [the investigator’s] file”); Pittman, 129 F.3d at 988 (stating “that disclo *808 sure to an adversary waives work product protection as to items actually disclosed,” but rejecting argument that by voluntarily disclosing photographs and measurements of railroad crossing accident scene, defendant waived work product privilege for entire con | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Noblesgreen2 sentences2000See, e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2170-71 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141, 154 (1975) (stating that defendant, “by electing to present [an] investigator as a witness, waived the [work product] privilege with respect to matters covered in [the investigator’s] file”); Pittman, 129 F.3d at 988 (stating “that disclo *808 sure to an adversary waives work product protection as to items actually disclosed,” but rejecting argument that by voluntarily disclosing photographs and measurements of railroad crossing accident scene, defendant waived work product privilege for entire con 2000See, e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2170-71 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141, 154 (1975) (stating that defendant, “by electing to present [an] investigator as a witness, waived the [work product] privilege with respect to matters covered in [the investigator’s] file”); Pittman, 129 F.3d at 988 (stating “that disclo *808 sure to an adversary waives work product protection as to items actually disclosed,” but rejecting argument that by voluntarily disclosing photographs and measurements of railroad crossing accident scene, defendant waived work product privilege for entire con | 1 | 1 |
Pittman v. Frazergreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2170-71 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141, 154 (1975) (stating that defendant, “by electing to present [an] investigator as a witness, waived the [work product] privilege with respect to matters covered in [the investigator’s] file”); Pittman, 129 F.3d at 988 (stating “that disclo *808 sure to an adversary waives work product protection as to items actually disclosed,” but rejecting argument that by voluntarily disclosing photographs and measurements of railroad crossing accident scene, defendant waived work product privilege for entire con | 1 | 1 |
The Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken, Inc.green1 sentence2000See, e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2170-71 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141, 154 (1975) (stating that defendant, “by electing to present [an] investigator as a witness, waived the [work product] privilege with respect to matters covered in [the investigator’s] file”); Pittman, 129 F.3d at 988 (stating “that disclo *808 sure to an adversary waives work product protection as to items actually disclosed,” but rejecting argument that by voluntarily disclosing photographs and measurements of railroad crossing accident scene, defendant waived work product privilege for entire con | 1 | 1 |
Fleet National Bank v. Tonneson & Co.green1 sentence2000See, e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2170-71 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141, 154 (1975) (stating that defendant, “by electing to present [an] investigator as a witness, waived the [work product] privilege with respect to matters covered in [the investigator’s] file”); Pittman, 129 F.3d at 988 (stating “that disclo *808 sure to an adversary waives work product protection as to items actually disclosed,” but rejecting argument that by voluntarily disclosing photographs and measurements of railroad crossing accident scene, defendant waived work product privilege for entire con | 1 | 1 |
In re United Mine Workers of America Employee Benefit Plans Litigationgreen1 sentence2000See, e.g., United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 , 95 S.Ct. 2160, 2170-71 , 45 L.Ed.2d 141, 154 (1975) (stating that defendant, “by electing to present [an] investigator as a witness, waived the [work product] privilege with respect to matters covered in [the investigator’s] file”); Pittman, 129 F.3d at 988 (stating “that disclo *808 sure to an adversary waives work product protection as to items actually disclosed,” but rejecting argument that by voluntarily disclosing photographs and measurements of railroad crossing accident scene, defendant waived work product privilege for entire con | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morphygreen1 sentence1931See State v. Morphy, 33 Iowa 270 ; Shelton v. State, 34 Texas 662 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Elyse De Stefano v. Apts. Downtown, Inc.
green
1 sentence2025“Jurisdiction over the subject matter of a claim must be conferred by a constitutional or statutory grant.” Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2012Id. at 105–06. 2012Id. at 105-06 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Booth
green
2 sentences1941The subject-matter of such a waiver has no place for reference in the taking of testimony except by the party permitted to make it." See, also, State v. Booth, 121 Iowa 710 , at page 713, 97 N. W. 74 . 1941The subject-matter of such a waiver has no place for reference in the taking of testimony except by the party permitted to make it." See, also, State v. Booth, 121 Iowa 710 , at page 713, 97 N. W. 74 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
In Re Will & Testament of Carson
green
2 sentences1940In re Carson’s Will, 227 Iowa 941 , 289 N.W. 30 . 1940In re Carson’s Will, 227 Iowa 941 , 289 N.W. 30 . | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Shelton v. State
green
1 sentence1931See State v. Morphy, 33 Iowa 270 ; Shelton v. State, 34 Texas 662 . | 1 | 1931–1931 |
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.