10 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1920–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Winters v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences1979See Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 515 , 68 S.Ct. 665, 670 , 92 L.Ed. 840 , 849 (1948). 1979See Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 515 , 68 S.Ct. 665, 670 , 92 L.Ed. 840 , 849 (1948). | 3 | 3 |
Presley v. Georgiagreen2 sentences2022That said, “[g]oing forward, we encourage district courts to make explicit Waller findings on the record when they limit courtroom access.” Id. at 723 ; see also Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 215 (2010) (noting that “in those cases [in which the facts may justify a courtroom closure], the particular interest [justifying closure], and threat to that interest, must ‘be articulated along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered’ ” (quoting Press-Enter., 464 U.S. at 510 )). 25 2021 WL 5984690 , at *3 (Ky. Dec. 16, 2021) ( 2022That said, “[g]oing forward, we encourage district courts to make explicit Waller findings on the record when they limit courtroom access.” Id. at 723 ; see also Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 215 (2010) (noting that “in those cases [in which the facts may justify a courtroom closure], the particular interest [justifying closure], and threat to that interest, must ‘be articulated along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered’ ” (quoting Press-Enter., 464 U.S. at 510 )). 25 2021 WL 5984690 , at *3 (Ky. Dec. 16, 2021) ( | 2 | 2 |
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cty.green2 sentences2022That said, “[g]oing forward, we encourage district courts to make explicit Waller findings on the record when they limit courtroom access.” Id. at 723 ; see also Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 215 (2010) (noting that “in those cases [in which the facts may justify a courtroom closure], the particular interest [justifying closure], and threat to that interest, must ‘be articulated along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered’ ” (quoting Press-Enter., 464 U.S. at 510 )). 25 2021 WL 5984690 , at *3 (Ky. Dec. 16, 2021) ( 2022That said, “[g]oing forward, we encourage district courts to make explicit Waller findings on the record when they limit courtroom access.” Id. at 723 ; see also Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 215 (2010) (noting that “in those cases [in which the facts may justify a courtroom closure], the particular interest [justifying closure], and threat to that interest, must ‘be articulated along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered’ ” (quoting Press-Enter., 464 U.S. at 510 )). 25 2021 WL 5984690 , at *3 (Ky. Dec. 16, 2021) ( | 2 | 2 |
Tenney v. Atlantic Associatesgreen1 sentence2022Tenney v. A. Assocs., 594 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Iowa 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Tindal v. Normangreen1 sentence2016Plainly stated, “no exception exists to section 17A.19’s exclusivity for a writ of certiorari.” Tindal v. Norman, 427 N.W.2d 871, 873 (Iowa 1988); see also Iowa Indus. | 1 | 1 |
Hollinrake v. Monroe Countygreen1 sentence1994Compare Hollinrake v. Monroe County, 433 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 1988) (a disability discrimination claim based on the substance of a rule enacted by the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy must be challenged under the judicial review procedures of chapter 17A; the ICRC did not have authority to hear the challenge as a civil rights action) with Jew v. University of Iowa, 398 N.W.2d 861 (Iowa 1987) (sexual harassment claim by associate professor may be pursued under chapter 601A; chapter 17A did not provide the exclusive means to challenge the University's action). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schurmangreen2 sentences1973See State v. Williams, 207 N.W.2d 98, 109 (Iowa 1973); State v. Houston, 206 N.W.2d 687, 690-691 (Iowa 1973); State v. Schurman, 205 N.W.2d 732, 735 (Iowa 1973); State v. Bruno, 204 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Iowa 1973). 1973See State v. Williams, 207 N.W.2d 98, 109 (Iowa 1973); State v. Houston, 206 N.W.2d 687, 690-691 (Iowa 1973); State v. Schurman, 205 N.W.2d 732, 735 (Iowa 1973); State v. Bruno, 204 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Iowa 1973). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brunogreen2 sentences1973See State v. Williams, 207 N.W.2d 98, 109 (Iowa 1973); State v. Houston, 206 N.W.2d 687, 690-691 (Iowa 1973); State v. Schurman, 205 N.W.2d 732, 735 (Iowa 1973); State v. Bruno, 204 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Iowa 1973). 1973See State v. Williams, 207 N.W.2d 98, 109 (Iowa 1973); State v. Houston, 206 N.W.2d 687, 690-691 (Iowa 1973); State v. Schurman, 205 N.W.2d 732, 735 (Iowa 1973); State v. Bruno, 204 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Iowa 1973). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Houstongreen2 sentences1973See State v. Williams, 207 N.W.2d 98, 109 (Iowa 1973); State v. Houston, 206 N.W.2d 687, 690-691 (Iowa 1973); State v. Schurman, 205 N.W.2d 732, 735 (Iowa 1973); State v. Bruno, 204 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Iowa 1973). 1973See State v. Williams, 207 N.W.2d 98, 109 (Iowa 1973); State v. Houston, 206 N.W.2d 687, 690-691 (Iowa 1973); State v. Schurman, 205 N.W.2d 732, 735 (Iowa 1973); State v. Bruno, 204 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Iowa 1973). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1973See State v. Williams, 207 N.W.2d 98, 109 (Iowa 1973); State v. Houston, 206 N.W.2d 687, 690-691 (Iowa 1973); State v. Schurman, 205 N.W.2d 732, 735 (Iowa 1973); State v. Bruno, 204 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Iowa 1973). 1973See State v. Williams, 207 N.W.2d 98, 109 (Iowa 1973); State v. Houston, 206 N.W.2d 687, 690-691 (Iowa 1973); State v. Schurman, 205 N.W.2d 732, 735 (Iowa 1973); State v. Bruno, 204 N.W.2d 879, 884 (Iowa 1973). | 1 | 1 |
Curtis v. Armagastgreen1 sentence1920See Curtis v. Armagast, 158 Iowa 507, 527 ; Cole v. Stokes, 113 N. C. 270 ( 18 S. E. 321 ); Korn v. Becker, 40 N. J. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jew v. University of Iowa
green
1 sentence1994Compare Hollinrake v. Monroe County, 433 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 1988) (a disability discrimination claim based on the substance of a rule enacted by the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy must be challenged under the judicial review procedures of chapter 17A; the ICRC did not have authority to hear the challenge as a civil rights action) with Jew v. University of Iowa, 398 N.W.2d 861 (Iowa 1987) (sexual harassment claim by associate professor may be pursued under chapter 601A; chapter 17A did not provide the exclusive means to challenge the University's action). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Cole v. . Stokes
neutral
2 sentences1920See Curtis v. Armagast, 158 Iowa 507, 527 ; Cole v. Stokes, 113 N. C. 270 ( 18 S. E. 321 ); Korn v. Becker, 40 N. J. 1920See Curtis v. Armagast, 158 Iowa 507, 527 ; Cole v. Stokes, 113 N. C. 270 ( 18 S. E. 321 ); Korn v. Becker, 40 N. J. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.