overt act requirement (Iowa) · Go Syfert
← Iowa issues

overt act requirement in Iowa

10 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2026 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Matter of Mohrgreen
iowa · 1986 · cited in 6 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2014–2026
2 sentences

2026“Behavior that is socially unacceptable, standing alone, does not satisfy the overt act requirement.” L.E.B., 2015 WL 7575399 , at *3 (citing In re Mohr, 383 N.W.2d 539, 542 (Iowa 1986)).

2025“Behavior that is socially unacceptable, standing alone, does not satisfy the overt act requirement.” L.E.B., 2015 WL 7575399 , at *3 (citing In re Mohr, 383 N.W.2d 539, 542 (Iowa 1986)).

56
Matter of Fostergreen
iowa · 1988 · cited in 3 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2020–2026
2 sentences

2026Instead, the “‘overt act’ must indicate ‘past aggressive behavior or threats’ that manifest ‘the probable commission of a dangerous act’ by the respondent ‘that is likely to result in physical injury.’” V.H., 996 N.W.2d at 544 (quoting In re Foster, 426 N.W.2d 374, 378 (Iowa 1988)).

2020The respondent’s strange statements played some role in the altercations, however the Iowa Supreme Court held the overt-act requirement unsatisfied, saying, “[p]rovoking acts of aggression toward oneself by bizarre or socially unacceptable behavior does not elevate such behavior to a level of likely physical injury to oneself.” Id. at 379 .

23
Matter of Personal Restraint of Youngred
wash · 1993 · cited in 2 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
2 sentences

2018The Washington Supreme Court held in In re Personal Restraint of Young that the recent overt-act requirement is generally mandated by due process because the state must show current dangerousness. 122 Wash.2d 1 , 857 P.2d 989 , 1008 (1993) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds , Wash. Rev.

2018The Washington Supreme Court held in In re Personal Restraint of Young that the recent overt-act requirement is generally mandated by due process because the state must show current dangerousness. 122 Wash.2d 1 , 857 P.2d 989 , 1008 (1993) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds , Wash. Rev.

22
In Re Albrechtgreen
wash · 2002 · cited in 2 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
2 sentences

2018Albrecht, 51 P.3d at 78 (holding the state was required to show proof of a recent overt act for individual who was recently released from incarceration into the community).

2018Albrecht , 51 P.3d at 78 (holding the state was required to show proof of a recent overt act for individual who was recently released from incarceration into the community).

22
In Re Detention of Gonzalesgreen
iowa · 2003 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018See In re Det. of Gonzales, 658 N.W.2d 102, 104 (Iowa 2003).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
In Re Detention of Thorell green
wash · 2003
2 sentences

2018Code Ann. §§ 71.09.020 , .090–.098 (West), as recognized in In re Det. of Thorell, 72 P.3d 708 , 720–21 (2003) (en banc).

2018Code Ann. §§ 71.09.020 , .090-.098 (West), as recognized in In re Det. of Thorell , 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 , 720-21 (2003) (en banc).

22018–2018
In re the Detention of Thorell green
wash · 2003
1 sentence

2018Code Ann. §§ 71.09.020 , .090-.098 (West), as recognized in In re Det. of Thorell , 149 Wash.2d 724 , 72 P.3d 708 , 720-21 (2003) (en banc).

12018–2018

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IA § Iowa Code § 229.1 (6) IA § Iowa Code § 229.13 (3) IA § Iowa Code § 229A.2 (3) IA § Iowa Code § 229A.4 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 40 (1983–2026) WA 27 (1969–2025) IA 10 (2014–2026) PA 8 (1985–2026) KS 8 (1989–2019) NY 5 (1983–2003) MI 5 (1981–2003) MA 5 (2001–2023) ND 5 (1982–2021) MN 4 (1995–2024) FL 4 (1993–2016) MS 4 (1999–2021) MT 3 (1996–2021) CO 3 (1985–2017) NE 3 (1988–2022) AZ 3 (1975–1995) VA 3 (2019–2025) OK 3 (1989–2010) LA 3 (1978–2000) VT 2 (1997–1997) WV 2 (1982–1993) DE 2 (2011–2011) GA 2 (2019–2019) IN 2 (1994–1998) ID 2 (1981–2006)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check