11 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences2016See id. at 125 . 2016See id. at 125 . | 2 | 2 |
Ledezma v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 142 (Iowa 2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kressgreen1 sentence2024“Due process . . . requires that a defendant enter a guilty plea voluntarily and intelligently.” State v. Kress, 636 N.W.2d 12, 21 (Iowa 2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Speedgreen1 sentence2021See State v. Speed, 573 N.W.2d 594, 596 (Iowa 1998) (explaining court may refuse to allow withdrawal when the defendant enters plea with full knowledge of the charge against him, his rights and the consequences, and does so free of coercion). | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Deyawna Leanett Taylorgreen1 sentence2018See Taylor, 881 N.W.2d at 74 - 80. | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Donald Benjamin Earl Reedgreen1 sentence2017See State v. Reed, 875 N.W.2d 693, 704 (Iowa 2016). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shanahangreen1 sentence2017See State v. Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d 121, 142 (Iowa 2006). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Oldfathergreen1 sentence2017See State v. Oldfather, 306 N.W.2d 760 , 763–64 (Iowa 1981) (stating an automobile, if “used in such a manner as to indicate an intent to inflict death or serious injury, may be a ‘dangerous weapon’” (citation omitted)); see also State v. Campbell, No. 10-0117, 2013 WL 4011071 , at *8 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2013) (finding sufficient evidence to support assault-with-dangerous-weapon conviction when defendant drove into the victim with a car). 5 videos to create a jury question as to whether or not the defendant intended to commit an assault.” We see no error in the court’s ruling. | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Max v. Thorndikegreen1 sentence2017See State v. Thorndike, 860 N.W.2d 316, 319 (Iowa 2015). | 1 | 1 |
McCormick v. Meyergreen1 sentence2015McCormick v. Meyer, 582 N.W.2d 141, 144 (Iowa 1998). 5 judgment on Taylor’s counterclaim, granting Capital One’s motion for summary judgment on its own claim against Taylor, and denying Taylor’s motion for summary judgment on his counterclaim. | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Stategreen1 sentence2004Motive is the cause or reason that moves the will and induces action for a definite result, while intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.” State v. Abercrombie, 375 So.2d 1170, 1175 (La.1979) (citation omitted); accord Campbell v. State, 718 So.2d 123, 130 (Ala.Crim.App.1997); Craun v. State, 762 N.E.2d 230 , 237 n. 11 (Ind.Ct.App.2002); People v. Hoffman, 225 Mich.App. 103 , 570 N.W.2d 146, 148 (1997); Johnson v. State, 872 P.2d 93, 97 (Wyo.1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Abercrombiegreen1 sentence2004Motive is the cause or reason that moves the will and induces action for a definite result, while intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.” State v. Abercrombie, 375 So.2d 1170, 1175 (La.1979) (citation omitted); accord Campbell v. State, 718 So.2d 123, 130 (Ala.Crim.App.1997); Craun v. State, 762 N.E.2d 230 , 237 n. 11 (Ind.Ct.App.2002); People v. Hoffman, 225 Mich.App. 103 , 570 N.W.2d 146, 148 (1997); Johnson v. State, 872 P.2d 93, 97 (Wyo.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2004Motive is the cause or reason that moves the will and induces action for a definite result, while intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.” State v. Abercrombie, 375 So.2d 1170, 1175 (La.1979) (citation omitted); accord Campbell v. State, 718 So.2d 123, 130 (Ala.Crim.App.1997); Craun v. State, 762 N.E.2d 230 , 237 n. 11 (Ind.Ct.App.2002); People v. Hoffman, 225 Mich.App. 103 , 570 N.W.2d 146, 148 (1997); Johnson v. State, 872 P.2d 93, 97 (Wyo.1994). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hoffmangreen2 sentences2004Motive is the cause or reason that moves the will and induces action for a definite result, while intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.” State v. Abercrombie, 375 So.2d 1170, 1175 (La.1979) (citation omitted); accord Campbell v. State, 718 So.2d 123, 130 (Ala.Crim.App.1997); Craun v. State, 762 N.E.2d 230 , 237 n. 11 (Ind.Ct.App.2002); People v. Hoffman, 225 Mich.App. 103 , 570 N.W.2d 146, 148 (1997); Johnson v. State, 872 P.2d 93, 97 (Wyo.1994). 2004Motive is the cause or reason that moves the will and induces action for a definite result, while intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.” State v. Abercrombie, 375 So.2d 1170, 1175 (La.1979) (citation omitted); accord Campbell v. State, 718 So.2d 123, 130 (Ala.Crim.App.1997); Craun v. State, 762 N.E.2d 230 , 237 n. 11 (Ind.Ct.App.2002); People v. Hoffman, 225 Mich.App. 103 , 570 N.W.2d 146, 148 (1997); Johnson v. State, 872 P.2d 93, 97 (Wyo.1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Finnelgreen1 sentence1996State v. Finnel, 515 N.W.2d 41, 43 (Iowa 1994). | 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 of Iowa v. Kenneth Osborne Ary
green
1 sentence2020Therefore, because the evidence did not support “the alternative verdict as opposed to the verdict rendered,” Ary, 877 N.W.2d at 706 , we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Taylor’s motion for a new trial. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Taylor v. Department of Transportation
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Craun v. State
green
1 sentence2004Motive is the cause or reason that moves the will and induces action for a definite result, while intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such result.” State v. Abercrombie, 375 So.2d 1170, 1175 (La.1979) (citation omitted); accord Campbell v. State, 718 So.2d 123, 130 (Ala.Crim.App.1997); Craun v. State, 762 N.E.2d 230 , 237 n. 11 (Ind.Ct.App.2002); People v. Hoffman, 225 Mich.App. 103 , 570 N.W.2d 146, 148 (1997); Johnson v. State, 872 P.2d 93, 97 (Wyo.1994). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.