10 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1898–2019 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. Sailergreen2 sentences2015Since sentencing proceedings come with a presumption of regularity, see, e.g., State v. Jose, 636 N.W.2d 38, 41 (Iowa 2001); State v. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d 756, 762 (Iowa 1998), it seems unfair to assume— in the absence of any claim by the defendant—that an irregularity might have occurred. 2015Since sentencing proceedings come with a. presumption of regularity, see, e.g., State v. Jose, 636 N.W.2d 38, 41 (Iowa 2001); State v. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d 756, 762 (Iowa 1998), it. seems unfair to assume — in the absence of any claim by the defendant — that an irregularity might have occurred. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Josegreen2 sentences2015Since sentencing proceedings come with a presumption of regularity, see, e.g., State v. Jose, 636 N.W.2d 38, 41 (Iowa 2001); State v. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d 756, 762 (Iowa 1998), it seems unfair to assume— in the absence of any claim by the defendant—that an irregularity might have occurred. 2015Since sentencing proceedings come with a. presumption of regularity, see, e.g., State v. Jose, 636 N.W.2d 38, 41 (Iowa 2001); State v. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d 756, 762 (Iowa 1998), it. seems unfair to assume — in the absence of any claim by the defendant — that an irregularity might have occurred. | 2 | 2 |
Ray v. Keithgreen2 sentences2008See Ray v. Keith, 859 So.2d 995, 996-97 (Miss.2003) (rejecting as a matter of law plaintiffs claim of equitable estoppel based on defendant’s failure to reveal to plaintiff that defendant was acting within the course of employment at time of accident, notwithstanding defendant’s insurer’s payment of passengers’ claims). 2008See Ray v. Keith, 859 So. 2d 995 , 996–97 (Miss. 2003) (rejecting as a matter of law plaintiff’s claim of equitable estoppel based on defendant’s failure to reveal to plaintiff that defendant was acting within the course of employment at time of accident, notwithstanding defendant’s insurer’s payment of passengers’ claims). | 2 | 2 |
John Pavone and Signature Management Group, L.L.C. v. Gerald M. Kirke and Wild Rose Entertainment, L.L.C.green1 sentence2015See Pavone v. Kirke, 801 N.W.2d 477, 489 (Iowa 2011) (stating “right or wrong, the instructions become the law of the case” when the party fails “to raise on appeal any error in the instructions given to the jury”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Horngreen1 sentence2004State v. Horn, 282 N.W.2d 717, 724 (Iowa 1979); David P. Leonard, The New Wigmore: A Treatise on Evidence § 1.6.1, at 1:16 (2001) (stating when “the relevancy of the evidence depends on whether [the] extra-judicial statement ... was in fact true[, the] statement [is] hearsay, and in the absence of any exception ..., it would be inadmissible”); 2 John W. | 1 | 1 |
Kime v. Brewergreen1 sentence1971Kime v. Brewer, 182 N.W.2d 154, 156 (Iowa 1970), Nevertheless we have examined both the record and the clerk’s transcript and find no substantial error. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daniel J. Bowles v. United States
green
1 sentence2019The trial judge correctly ruled Heard was not entitled to compel Brown to the stand to take the Fifth in “a Perry Mason moment.” See Bowles, 439 F.2d at 541–42 (“The jury may think it high courtroom drama of probative significance when a witness ‘takes the Fifth.’ In reality the probative value of the event is almost entirely undercut by the absence of any requirement that the witness justify his fear of incrimination and by the fact that it is a form of evidence not subject to cross-examination.”). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Rinehart v. State
green
2 sentences1977The difficulty with this argument is that the interpretation petitioner hopes for in Hack, supra, was not borne out in our opinion in Rinehart, supra. Rinehart holds the failure is a bar notwithstanding the absence of any claim in the pleadings. 1977The difficulty with this argument is that the interpretation petitioner hopes for in Hack, supra, was not borne out in our opinion in Rinehart, supra. Rinehart holds the failure is a bar notwithstanding the absence of any claim in the pleadings. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Hack v. Auger
green
2 sentences1977The difficulty with this argument is that the interpretation petitioner hopes for in Hack, supra, was not borne out in our opinion in Rinehart, supra. Rinehart holds the failure is a bar notwithstanding the absence of any claim in the pleadings. 1977The difficulty with this argument is that the interpretation petitioner hopes for in Hack, supra, was not borne out in our opinion in Rinehart, supra. Rinehart holds the failure is a bar notwithstanding the absence of any claim in the pleadings. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Mathews v. Culbertson
neutral
1 sentence1898The case is not like Matthews v. Culbertson, 83 Iowa, 434 , or Bacon v. Chase, 83 Iowa, 521 . | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Bacon v. Chase
neutral
1 sentence1898The case is not like Matthews v. Culbertson, 83 Iowa, 434 , or Bacon v. Chase, 83 Iowa, 521 . | 1 | 1898–1898 |
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.