spirit rule (Iowa) · Go Syfert
← Iowa issues

spirit rule in Iowa

10 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1862–2018 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State Of Iowa Vs. Ricardo Ortizgreen
iowa · 2010 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017See State v. Ortiz, 789 N.W.2d 761, 764-65 (Iowa 2010) (noting prejudice is presumed where counsel permits a defendant to plead guilty and waive his right to file a motion in arrest of judgment when no factual basis for the crime has been established).

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 (8)

CaseCitedYears
United States v. Gonzalo Gonzalez green
ca11 · 1982
2 sentences

2017The pivotal federal case on bifurcation is United States v. Gonzales, 671 F.2d 441 (11th Cir. 1982).

2017The pivotal federal case on bifurcation is United States v. Gonzales, 671 F.2d 441 (11th Cir. 1982).

22017–2017
Florke v. Peterson green
iowa · 1954
2 sentences

1992It is in line with the purpose of the legislation under which the rules were conceived—"promoting the speedy determination of litigation upon its merits." Id.

1992The procedure conforms to the spirit of rule -243(b) [Iowa R.Civ.P.]_ It is in line with the purpose of the legislation under which the rules were conceived — “promoting the speedy determination of litigation upon its merits.” Id.

21960–1992
State v. Jonas green
iowa · 2017
1 sentence

2018In Jonas, the court ruled that when the district court abuses its discretion by improperly refusing “to disqualify a potential juror under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.18(5)(k) and thereby causes a defendant to expend a peremptory challenge under rule 2.18(9), the defendant must specifically ask the court for an additional strike of a particular juror after his peremptory challenges have been exhausted.” 904 N.W.2d at 583 .

12018–2018
State v. Brown green
iowa · 2003
1 sentence

2015In circumstances such as these in which objection was raised pretrial, raised again as the exhibits were offered, but not repeatedly renewed each time the objected-to evidence was discussed throughout the trial, “the spirit of the rule [is] met.” See id.

12015–2015
O'BRIEN v. Mullapudi green
iowa · 1987
1 sentence

1993O’Brien, 405 N.W.2d at 819 .

11993–1993
Bell v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. neutral
iowa · 1884
1 sentence

1906This holding conies within the spirit of the rule applied by us in Leebrick v. Stahle, 68 Iowa, 515 , and Bell v. Railroad Co., 64 Iowa, 321 . 2 examination i°ÍJ£gNESS: questions.

11906–1906
Leebrick v. Stahle neutral
iowa · 1886
1 sentence

1906This holding conies within the spirit of the rule applied by us in Leebrick v. Stahle, 68 Iowa, 515 , and Bell v. Railroad Co., 64 Iowa, 321 . 2 examination i°ÍJ£gNESS: questions.

11906–1906
Pendleton v. . Empire Stone Dressing Company neutral
ny · 1859
1 sentence

1862Pendleton v. Empire Company, 19 N. Y., 13 .

11862–1862

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IA § Iowa Code § 902.12 (3) IA § Iowa Code § 902.7 (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

VT 66 (1883–2025) NY 36 (1843–2008) IL 23 (1903–2023) TX 20 (1884–2015) IN 20 (1984–2024) AL 17 (1840–2024) CA 15 (1896–2010) PA 14 (1900–2025) NJ 13 (1933–2025) FL 13 (1970–2011) AZ 12 (1965–2025) MO 11 (1884–2020) IA 10 (1862–2018) WA 9 (1901–2020) KS 8 (1900–2026) WY 8 (1906–2005) OH 8 (1837–2020) MT 8 (1982–2026) SD 8 (1892–1998) DC 7 (1884–2014) VA 7 (1833–2025) ID 7 (1978–2009) WV 7 (1966–2004) CO 7 (1895–2021) MA 7 (1845–2018) TN 6 (1896–2002) MI 6 (1890–2001) GA 6 (1901–1990) WI 5 (1936–2006) MS 5 (1873–2025) NM 5 (1929–2014) AR 5 (1898–2003) CT 5 (1969–2003) OR 4 (1904–1970) NH 4 (1826–2015) NC 4 (1887–2012) MN 4 (1893–2018) ND 3 (1910–2006) KY 2 (1978–2017) HI 2 (1953–1955) LA 2 (1964–1991) MD 2 (1967–2017) SC 2 (1908–1925) DE 2 (2020–2022) RI 2 (2012–2014)

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