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.
7 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kirchoffgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Kirchoff, 452 N.W.2d 801 , 805–06 (Iowa 1990) (“[The defendant] will not be allowed to plead anew merely because he was informed of the matters listed in rule [2.8(2)(b)] in writing instead of orally.”). 2001Under rule 8(2)(b), we must find that Kress entered her plea “intelligently in the sense that [she] had been informed of, and understood, the matters listed in rule 8(2)(b).” Id. at 805 . | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Gino Victor Del Pretegreen2 sentences1990Id.; but see United States v. Del Prete, 567 F.2d 928, 930 (9th Cir.1978) (written document cannot satisfy rule 11, "which requires that the trial judge address the defendant in open court as to each of [the matters listed in rule 11].”). 1990Id.; but see United States v. Del Prete, 567 F.2d 928, 930 (9th Cir.1978) (written document cannot satisfy rule 11, "which requires that the trial judge address the defendant in open court as to each of [the matters listed in rule 11]."). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Fluhrgreen2 sentences1990See id. at 862-65 . 1990See id. at 862-65 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mensahgreen1 sentence1990Id. at 454-55. [3] Our conclusion that Kirchoff's petitions to plead guilty adequately informed him of the matters listed in rule 8(2)(b) is consistent with at least one reported decision under the analogous federal rule. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Gino Victor Del Pretegreen2 sentences1990Id.; but see United States v. Del Prete, 567 F.2d 928, 930 (9th Cir.1978) (written document cannot satisfy rule 11, "which requires that the trial judge address the defendant in open court as to each of [the matters listed in rule 11].”). 1990Id.; but see United States v. Del Prete, 567 F.2d 928, 930 (9th Cir.1978) (written document cannot satisfy rule 11, "which requires that the trial judge address the defendant in open court as to each of [the matters listed in rule 11]."). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Loye
green
2 sentences2006Loye, 670 N.W.2d at 151 . “ ‘Substantial compliance’ requires at a minimum that the defendant be informed of these matters and understand them.” Id. 2006Loye, 670 N.W.2d at 151 . “ ‘Substantial compliance’ requires at a minimum that the defendant be informed of these matters and understand them.” Id. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Belford v. Bell
neutral
2 sentences1990In Belford v. Bell, 471 F.Supp. 579 (E.D.Mich.1979), Belford sought vacation of his guilty plea through collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . 1990In Belford v. Bell, 471 F.Supp. 579 (E.D.Mich.1979), Belford sought vacation of his guilty plea through collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.