10 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Littlejohn v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2019Blanket privilege is only to be granted to a witness “when it is evident to the court that anything less will not adequately protect him.” Littlejohn v. United States, 705 A.2d 1077, 1083 (D.C. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Daniel J. Bowles v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2019Later, the district court ruled that State v. Bedwell, 417 N.W.2d 66, 69 (Iowa 1987) prevents a defendant from calling “a witness who has indicated an intent to assert his or her right against self-incrimination before a jury.” In Bedwell, the Iowa Supreme Court held the district court correctly prohibited the defense from calling a witness who was predetermined to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination, adopting the language from Bowles v. United States, 439 F.2d 536, 541 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ramirezgreen1 sentence2019State v. Ramirez, 936 A.2d 1254, 1265 (R.I. 2007); see also Kellogg, 385 N.W.2d at 560 (noting a “primary object of the confrontation clause” is the defendant’s right to cross- examine the witness in front of the jury). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kellogggreen1 sentence2019State v. Ramirez, 936 A.2d 1254, 1265 (R.I. 2007); see also Kellogg, 385 N.W.2d at 560 (noting a “primary object of the confrontation clause” is the defendant’s right to cross- examine the witness in front of the jury). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bedwellgreen1 sentence2019Later, the district court ruled that State v. Bedwell, 417 N.W.2d 66, 69 (Iowa 1987) prevents a defendant from calling “a witness who has indicated an intent to assert his or her right against self-incrimination before a jury.” In Bedwell, the Iowa Supreme Court held the district court correctly prohibited the defense from calling a witness who was predetermined to invoke his privilege against self-incrimination, adopting the language from Bowles v. United States, 439 F.2d 536, 541 (D.C. | 1 | 1 |
Grismore v. Consolidated Products Co.green2 sentences2015See In re Det. of Palmer, 691 N.W.2d 413, 418 (Iowa 2005) (citing Grismore, 232 Iowa at 343, 361 , 5 N.W.2d at 655, 663 ). 2015See In re Det. of Palmer, 691 N.W.2d 413, 418 (Iowa 2005) (citing Grismore, 232 Iowa at 343, 361 , 5 N.W.2d at 655, 663 ). | 1 | 1 |
Dubuque Casino Belle, Inc. v. Bairgreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Baker v. City of Ottumwa, 560 N.W.2d 578, 582 (Iowa 1997) (calling an exemption to governmental tort liability for a “claim relating to a swimming pool” a “broad classification” and therefore determining it exempted suits involving negligent lifeguards as well as cases pertaining to pool health standards (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Dubuque Casino Belle, Inc. v. Bair, 562 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (agreeing with the plaintiff that “ ‘relating to’ is a phrase to be given broad meaning” but noting that its broad scope can be limited where the legislature chooses to | 1 | 1 |
Baker v. City of Ottumwagreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., Baker v. City of Ottumwa, 560 N.W.2d 578, 582 (Iowa 1997) (calling an exemption to governmental tort liability for a “claim relating to a swimming pool” a “broad classification” and therefore determining it exempted suits involving negligent lifeguards as well as cases pertaining to pool health standards (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Dubuque Casino Belle, Inc. v. Bair, 562 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (agreeing with the plaintiff that “ ‘relating to’ is a phrase to be given broad meaning” but noting that its broad scope can be limited where the legislature chooses to | 1 | 1 |
In Re Detention of Palmergreen1 sentence2015See In re Det. of Palmer, 691 N.W.2d 413, 418 (Iowa 2005) (citing Grismore, 232 Iowa at 343, 361 , 5 N.W.2d at 655, 663 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Romerogreen2 sentences1985State v. Romero, 94 N.M. 22 , 606 P.2d 1116, 1121 (1980). 1985State v. Romero, 94 N.M. 22 , 606 P.2d 1116, 1121 (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 |
|---|---|---|
Harrell v. State
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 1369 . 2014Id. at 1369 . | 3 | 2014–2014 |
Sherlyn Konstantopoulos and Dimos Konstantopoulos v. Westvaco Corporation
green
1 sentence2001Konstantopoulos, 112 F.3d at 718 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Marti
green
1 sentence1982Unlike the Pennsylvania court in Root , however, we said in Marti that we were “unwilling to hold as a blanket rule of law that instructions used in civil trials regarding proximate cause are inappropriate for criminal trials.” Id. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.