Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 1951–1974 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 |
|---|---|---|
Paulsen v. Paulsengreen2 sentences1974In Paulsen v. Paulsen, 243 Iowa 51, 57 , 50 N.W.2d 567 , 571 this court said: “ * * * We are committed to the doctrine of recrimination, that is, if the evidence shows each party to be guilty of an offense which would give the other a right to a divorce, it must be denied to each. ‘If both parties have a right to divorce, neither party has.’ ” In 1965 in Nichols v. Nichols, 257 Iowa 458, 460 , 133 N.W.2d 77, 79 , this statement was quoted with apparent approval. 1974In Paulsen v. Paulsen, 243 Iowa 51, 57 , 50 N.W.2d 567 , 571 this court said: “ * * * We are committed to the doctrine of recrimination, that is, if the evidence shows each party to be guilty of an offense which would give the other a right to a divorce, it must be denied to each. ‘If both parties have a right to divorce, neither party has.’ ” In 1965 in Nichols v. Nichols, 257 Iowa 458, 460 , 133 N.W.2d 77, 79 , this statement was quoted with apparent approval. | 1 | 3 |
Kentzelman v. Kentzelmangreen2 sentences1965Paulsen v. Paulsen, 243 Iowa 51, 57, 58 , 50 N.W.2d 567, 571 ; Kentzelman v. Kentzelman, 245 Iowa 579, 583, 584 , 63 N.W.2d 194, 196 ; Leigh v. Leigh, 247 Iowa 358, 361, 362 , 73 N.W.2d 727, 729 ; Phillips v. Phillips, 251 Iowa 1310, 1317, 1318 , 104 N.W.2d 832, 836 . *434 Tbe principle or doctrine of comparative rectitude-is in the natpre of an exception to the doctrine of, recrimination and ■is applied in a few states,- mainly by statute, where it appears .the parties cannot live together and a divorce is best for their general welfare. 'We do, not recognize, this principle., Paulsen and Ken 1965Paulsen v. Paulsen, 243 Iowa 51, 57, 58 , 50 N.W.2d 567, 571 ; Kentzelman v. Kentzelman, 245 Iowa 579, 583, 584 , 63 N.W.2d 194, 196 ; Leigh v. Leigh, 247 Iowa 358, 361, 362 , 73 N.W.2d 727, 729 ; Phillips v. Phillips, 251 Iowa 1310, 1317, 1318 , 104 N.W.2d 832, 836 . *434 Tbe principle or doctrine of comparative rectitude-is in the natpre of an exception to the doctrine of, recrimination and ■is applied in a few states,- mainly by statute, where it appears .the parties cannot live together and a divorce is best for their general welfare. 'We do, not recognize, this principle., Paulsen and Ken | 1 | 3 |
Phillips v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences1965Paulsen v. Paulsen, 243 Iowa 51, 57, 58 , 50 N.W.2d 567, 571 ; Kentzelman v. Kentzelman, 245 Iowa 579, 583, 584 , 63 N.W.2d 194, 196 ; Leigh v. Leigh, 247 Iowa 358, 361, 362 , 73 N.W.2d 727, 729 ; Phillips v. Phillips, 251 Iowa 1310, 1317, 1318 , 104 N.W.2d 832, 836 . *434 Tbe principle or doctrine of comparative rectitude-is in the natpre of an exception to the doctrine of, recrimination and ■is applied in a few states,- mainly by statute, where it appears .the parties cannot live together and a divorce is best for their general welfare. 'We do, not recognize, this principle., Paulsen and Ken 1965Paulsen v. Paulsen, 243 Iowa 51, 57, 58 , 50 N.W.2d 567, 571 ; Kentzelman v. Kentzelman, 245 Iowa 579, 583, 584 , 63 N.W.2d 194, 196 ; Leigh v. Leigh, 247 Iowa 358, 361, 362 , 73 N.W.2d 727, 729 ; Phillips v. Phillips, 251 Iowa 1310, 1317, 1318 , 104 N.W.2d 832, 836 . *434 Tbe principle or doctrine of comparative rectitude-is in the natpre of an exception to the doctrine of, recrimination and ■is applied in a few states,- mainly by statute, where it appears .the parties cannot live together and a divorce is best for their general welfare. 'We do, not recognize, this principle., Paulsen and Ken | 1 | 1 |
Leigh v. Leighgreen2 sentences1965Paulsen v. Paulsen, 243 Iowa 51, 57, 58 , 50 N.W.2d 567, 571 ; Kentzelman v. Kentzelman, 245 Iowa 579, 583, 584 , 63 N.W.2d 194, 196 ; Leigh v. Leigh, 247 Iowa 358, 361, 362 , 73 N.W.2d 727, 729 ; Phillips v. Phillips, 251 Iowa 1310, 1317, 1318 , 104 N.W.2d 832, 836 . *434 Tbe principle or doctrine of comparative rectitude-is in the natpre of an exception to the doctrine of, recrimination and ■is applied in a few states,- mainly by statute, where it appears .the parties cannot live together and a divorce is best for their general welfare. 'We do, not recognize, this principle., Paulsen and Ken 1965Paulsen v. Paulsen, 243 Iowa 51, 57, 58 , 50 N.W.2d 567, 571 ; Kentzelman v. Kentzelman, 245 Iowa 579, 583, 584 , 63 N.W.2d 194, 196 ; Leigh v. Leigh, 247 Iowa 358, 361, 362 , 73 N.W.2d 727, 729 ; Phillips v. Phillips, 251 Iowa 1310, 1317, 1318 , 104 N.W.2d 832, 836 . *434 Tbe principle or doctrine of comparative rectitude-is in the natpre of an exception to the doctrine of, recrimination and ■is applied in a few states,- mainly by statute, where it appears .the parties cannot live together and a divorce is best for their general welfare. 'We do, not recognize, this principle., Paulsen and Ken | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nichols v. Nichols
neutral
2 sentences1974In Paulsen v. Paulsen, 243 Iowa 51, 57 , 50 N.W.2d 567 , 571 this court said: “ * * * We are committed to the doctrine of recrimination, that is, if the evidence shows each party to be guilty of an offense which would give the other a right to a divorce, it must be denied to each. ‘If both parties have a right to divorce, neither party has.’ ” In 1965 in Nichols v. Nichols, 257 Iowa 458, 460 , 133 N.W.2d 77, 79 , this statement was quoted with apparent approval. 1974In Paulsen v. Paulsen, 243 Iowa 51, 57 , 50 N.W.2d 567 , 571 this court said: “ * * * We are committed to the doctrine of recrimination, that is, if the evidence shows each party to be guilty of an offense which would give the other a right to a divorce, it must be denied to each. ‘If both parties have a right to divorce, neither party has.’ ” In 1965 in Nichols v. Nichols, 257 Iowa 458, 460 , 133 N.W.2d 77, 79 , this statement was quoted with apparent approval. | 3 | 1970–1974 |
Arnold v. Arnold
green
2 sentences1969This is the doctrine of recrimination, Arnold v. Arnold, 257 Iowa 429, 433 , 133 N.W.2d 53, 56 , and citations and must be distinguished from cruelty which has been provoked. 1969This is the doctrine of recrimination, Arnold v. Arnold, 257 Iowa 429, 433 , 133 N.W.2d 53, 56 , and citations and must be distinguished from cruelty which has been provoked. | 2 | 1969–1970 |
Hoffman v. Hoffman
green
2 sentences1965“We are committed to the doctrine of recrimination, that is, if the evidence shoivs each party to be guilty of an offense which would give the other a right to a divorce, it must be denied to each. ‘If both parties have a right to divorce, neither party has.’ Hoffman v. Hoffman, 43 Mo. 547, 549 . 1951“If both parties have a right to divorce, neither party has.” Hoffman v. Hoffman, 43 Mo. 547, 549 . | 2 | 1951–1965 |
Beno v. Beno
green
2 sentences1971We view the evidence of cruel and inhuman treatment in the light of those well established rules of law set forth in Beno v. Beno, 260 Iowa 442, 445 , 149 N.W.2d 778 , 780 and in several of our cases following that decision, without repeating them. 1971We view the evidence of cruel and inhuman treatment in the light of those well established rules of law set forth in Beno v. Beno, 260 Iowa 442, 445 , 149 N.W.2d 778 , 780 and in several of our cases following that decision, without repeating them. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Erickson v. Erickson
green
1 sentence1970Erickson v. Erickson, Iowa, 154 N.W.2d 106, 111 ; Nichols v. Nichols, 257 Iowa 458, 460 , 133 N.W.2d 77, 79 ; Arnold v. Arnold, 257 Iowa 429, 433 , 133 N.W.2d 53, 56 , and citations. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Blankenship v. Blankenship
green
2 sentences1965Paulsen v. Paulsen, 243 Iowa 51, 57, 58 , 50 N.W.2d 567, 571 ; Kentzelman v. Kentzelman, 245 Iowa 579, 583, 584 , 63 N.W.2d 194, 196 ; Leigh v. Leigh, 247 Iowa 358, 361, 362 , 73 N.W.2d 727, 729 ; Phillips v. Phillips, 251 Iowa 1310, 1317, 1318 , 104 N.W.2d 832, 836 . *434 Tbe principle or doctrine of comparative rectitude-is in the natpre of an exception to the doctrine of, recrimination and ■is applied in a few states,- mainly by statute, where it appears .the parties cannot live together and a divorce is best for their general welfare. 'We do, not recognize, this principle., Paulsen and Ken 1965Paulsen v. Paulsen, 243 Iowa 51, 57, 58 , 50 N.W.2d 567, 571 ; Kentzelman v. Kentzelman, 245 Iowa 579, 583, 584 , 63 N.W.2d 194, 196 ; Leigh v. Leigh, 247 Iowa 358, 361, 362 , 73 N.W.2d 727, 729 ; Phillips v. Phillips, 251 Iowa 1310, 1317, 1318 , 104 N.W.2d 832, 836 . *434 Tbe principle or doctrine of comparative rectitude-is in the natpre of an exception to the doctrine of, recrimination and ■is applied in a few states,- mainly by statute, where it appears .the parties cannot live together and a divorce is best for their general welfare. 'We do, not recognize, this principle., Paulsen and Ken | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.