10 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wheat v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2009Such representation . . . invites disrespect for the integrity of the court [and] it is also detrimental to the independent interest of the trial judge to be free from future attacks over the adequacy of waiver or the fairness of the proceedings in his [or her] own court and the subtle problems implicating the defendant’s comprehension of the waiver.” 10 Vanover, 559 N.W.2d at 627 (quoting Wheat, 486 U.S. at 162 , 108 S. Ct. at 1698–99, 100 L. 2009Such representation . . . invites disrespect for the integrity of the court [and] it is also detrimental to the independent interest of the trial judge to be free from future attacks over the adequacy of waiver or the fairness of the proceedings in his [or her] own court and the subtle problems implicating the defendant’s comprehension of the waiver.” 10 Vanover, 559 N.W.2d at 627 (quoting Wheat, 486 U.S. at 162 , 108 S. Ct. at 1698–99, 100 L. | 3 | 3 |
Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Shanklingreen1 sentence2014See id. at 353 . | 1 | 1 |
Rothie Louise Harris v. Pacific Floor MacHine Manufacturing Company, a Corporationgreen2 sentences2014Co., 856 F.2d 64, 67-68 (8th Cir.1988) (noting distinction between testimony regarding criteria by which expert would form an opinion about the adequacy of a warning, which was important to fact finder’s understanding, and direct testimony regarding adequacy of warnings, which failed to provide similar aid). 2014Co., 856 F.2d 64 , 67–68 (8th Cir. 1988) (noting distinction between testimony regarding criteria by which expert would form an opinion about the adequacy of a warning, which was important to fact finder’s understanding, and direct testimony regarding adequacy of warnings, which failed to provide similar aid). | 1 | 1 |
DuPree v. Alma School District No. 30green1 sentence2012Id. at 1018; see also McDaniel, 285 S.E.2d at 156 . 57See, e.g., DuPree, 651 S.W.2d at 93 ; Tenn. Small Sch. | 1 | 1 |
Lujan v. Colorado State Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2012Id. at 1018 ; see also McDaniel, 285 S.E.2d at 156 . . 2012Id. at 1018; see also McDaniel, 285 S.E.2d at 156 . 57See, e.g., DuPree, 651 S.W.2d at 93 ; Tenn. Small Sch. | 1 | 1 |
McDaniel v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2012Id. at 1018 ; see also McDaniel, 285 S.E.2d at 156 . . 2012Id. at 1018; see also McDaniel, 285 S.E.2d at 156 . 57See, e.g., DuPree, 651 S.W.2d at 93 ; Tenn. Small Sch. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Dolan, John E.green1 sentence1997Id. at 162, 108 S.Ct. at 1699 , 100 L.Ed.2d at 151 (quoting United States v. Dolan, 570 F.2d 1177, 1184 (3d Cir.1978)). | 1 | 1 |
Worm v. American Cyanamid Companygreen1 sentence1995Welchert v. American Cyanamid, Inc., 59 F.3d 69 , -(8th Cir.1995); Taylor AG Indus. v. Pure-Gro, 54 F.3d 555 , 560 (9th Cir.1995); MacDonald v. Monsanto Co., 27 F.3d 1021, 1024 (5th Cir.1994); Worm v. American Cyanamid Co., 5 F.3d 744, 748 (4th Cir.1993); King v. E.I. | 1 | 1 |
Charles MacDonald Et Ux and State of Louisiana, Etc. v. Monsanto Co., Dow Chemical Co.green1 sentence1995Welchert v. American Cyanamid, Inc., 59 F.3d 69 , -(8th Cir.1995); Taylor AG Indus. v. Pure-Gro, 54 F.3d 555 , 560 (9th Cir.1995); MacDonald v. Monsanto Co., 27 F.3d 1021, 1024 (5th Cir.1994); Worm v. American Cyanamid Co., 5 F.3d 744, 748 (4th Cir.1993); King v. E.I. | 1 | 1 |
Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co.green2 sentences1986Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co., 58 Ill.App.3d 349 , 15 Ill.Dec. 900 , 374 N.E.2d 683, 686-87 (1978), aff'd, 79 Ill.2d 26 , 37 Ill.Dec. 304 , 402 N.E.2d 194 (1980). 1986Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co., 58 Ill.App.3d 349 , 15 Ill.Dec. 900 , 374 N.E.2d 683, 686-87 (1978), aff'd, 79 Ill.2d 26 , 37 Ill.Dec. 304 , 402 N.E.2d 194 (1980). | 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. Vanover
green
2 sentences2009Such representation ... invites disrespect for the integrity of the court [and] it is also detrimental to the independent interest of the trial judge to be free from future attacks over the adequacy of waiver or the fairness of the proceedings in his [or her] own court and the subtle problems implicating the defendant’s comprehension of the waiver.” *70 Vanover, 559 N.W.2d at 627 (quoting Wheat, 486 U.S. at 162 , 108 S.Ct. at 1698-99 , 100 L.Ed.2d at 151 (internal quotations omitted)). 2009Such representation . . . invites disrespect for the integrity of the court [and] it is also detrimental to the independent interest of the trial judge to be free from future attacks over the adequacy of waiver or the fairness of the proceedings in his [or her] own court and the subtle problems implicating the defendant’s comprehension of the waiver.” 10 Vanover, 559 N.W.2d at 627 (quoting Wheat, 486 U.S. at 162 , 108 S. Ct. at 1698–99, 100 L. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Clubine v. American Cyanamid Co.
green
1 sentence1996Clubine, 534 N.W.2d at 387 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Taylor Ag Industries v. Pure-Gro
green
1 sentence1995Welchert v. American Cyanamid, Inc., 59 F.3d 69 , -(8th Cir.1995); Taylor AG Indus. v. Pure-Gro, 54 F.3d 555 , 560 (9th Cir.1995); MacDonald v. Monsanto Co., 27 F.3d 1021, 1024 (5th Cir.1994); Worm v. American Cyanamid Co., 5 F.3d 744, 748 (4th Cir.1993); King v. E.I. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Donald Welchert, Rick Welchert, Jerry Welchert, Deborah Welchert v. American Cyanamid, Inc.
green
1 sentence1995Welchert v. American Cyanamid, Inc., 59 F.3d 69 , -(8th Cir.1995); Taylor AG Indus. v. Pure-Gro, 54 F.3d 555 , 560 (9th Cir.1995); MacDonald v. Monsanto Co., 27 F.3d 1021, 1024 (5th Cir.1994); Worm v. American Cyanamid Co., 5 F.3d 744, 748 (4th Cir.1993); King v. E.I. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
green
2 sentences1994Cf. Anderson, 281 Cal.Rptr. at 537 , 810 P.2d at 558 . 1994Cf. Anderson, 281 Cal.Rptr. at 537 , 810 P.2d at 558 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co.
green
2 sentences1986Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co., 58 Ill.App.3d 349 , 15 Ill.Dec. 900 , 374 N.E.2d 683, 686-87 (1978), aff'd, 79 Ill.2d 26 , 37 Ill.Dec. 304 , 402 N.E.2d 194 (1980). 1986Woodill v. Parke Davis & Co., 58 Ill.App.3d 349 , 15 Ill.Dec. 900 , 374 N.E.2d 683, 686-87 (1978), aff'd, 79 Ill.2d 26 , 37 Ill.Dec. 304 , 402 N.E.2d 194 (1980). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.