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 1981–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kersten Co., Inc. v. Department of Social Servicesgreen2 sentences2021Servs., 207 N.W.2d 117, 121 (Iowa 1973) (en banc) (“Stare decisis is a valuable legal doctrine which lends stability to the law . . . .”). 2000See Kersten Co. v. Department of Social Servs., 207 N.W.2d 117, 121 (Iowa 1973) (“Stare decisis is a valuable legal doctrine which lends stability to the law....”). | 5 | 6 |
State of Iowa v. Carson Michael Walkergreen2 sentences2014See State v. Walker, 804 N.W.2d 284, 296 (Iowa 2011) (“Stare decisis is a valuable legal doctrine which lends stability to the law....” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2014Stare decisis, we have stated, “is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Although “not an inexorable command,” stare decisis is a foundation stone of the rule of law, necessary to ensure that legal rules develop “in a principled and intelligible fashion.” For that reason, this Court has always held that “any departure” from the doctrine “demands special justification.” Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian | 4 | 4 |
Kiesau v. Bantzgreen2 sentences2014Stare decisis, we have stated, “is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Although “not an inexorable command,” stare decisis is a foundation stone of the rule of law, necessary to ensure that legal rules develop “in a principled and intelligible fashion.” For that reason, this Court has always held that “any departure” from the doctrine “demands special justification.” Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian 2014Ed. 2d ___, ___ (2014) (citations omitted); see also State v. Walker, 804 N.W.2d 284, 296 (Iowa 2011) (“Stare decisis is a valuable legal doctrine which lends stability to the law . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)); Kiesau v. Bantz, 686 N.W.2d 164, 180 (Iowa 2004) (Cady, J., dissenting) (“It nearly goes without saying that the doctrine of stare decisis is one of the bedrock principles on which this court is built. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2014It is an important restraint on judicial authority and provides needed stability in and respect for the law.”); cf. State v. Brown, 356 Ark. 460 , 156 S.W.3d 722, 735-36 (2004) (Glaze, J., dissenting) (concluding majority violated Arkansas precedent by giving state search and seizure provision different meaning than Fourth Amendment). 2014It is an important restraint on judicial authority and provides needed stability in and respect for the law.”); cf. State v. Brown, 356 Ark. 460 , 156 S.W.3d 722, 735-36 (2004) (Glaze, J., dissenting) (concluding majority violated Arkansas precedent by giving state search and seizure provision different meaning than Fourth Amendment). | 1 | 2 |
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Communitygreen2 sentences2014Stare decisis, we have stated, “is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Although “not an inexorable command,” stare decisis is a foundation stone of the rule of law, necessary to ensure that legal rules develop “in a principled and intelligible fashion.” For that reason, this Court has always held that “any departure” from the doctrine “demands special justification.” Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian 2014Stare decisis, we have stated, “is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Although “not an inexorable command,” stare decisis is a foundation stone of the rule of law, necessary to ensure that legal rules develop “in a principled and intelligible fashion.” For that reason, this Court has always held that “any departure” from the doctrine “demands special justification.” Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vietorgreen1 sentence2011See Moorehead, 699 N.W.2d at 673-74 (reviewing history of exclusionary rule under section 804.20 adopted in Vietor, 261 N.W.2d at 832 ). “ ‘Stare decisis is a valuable legal doctrine which lends stability to the law....”’ Welch, 801 N.W.2d at 599 (quoting Kersten Co. v. Dep’t of Soc. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mooreheadgreen1 sentence2011See Moorehead, 699 N.W.2d at 673-74 (reviewing history of exclusionary rule under section 804.20 adopted in Vietor, 261 N.W.2d at 832 ). “ ‘Stare decisis is a valuable legal doctrine which lends stability to the law....”’ Welch, 801 N.W.2d at 599 (quoting Kersten Co. v. Dep’t of Soc. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.