oral instruction in Iowa

2015In Meron there was no written plea setting out the contents of rule 2.8(2)(b), only an oral waiver by the defendant of the need to be advised of the requirements of the rule. 675 N.W.2d at 542-43 .

2015The oral waiver in Meron failed to substantially comply with the 5 requirements of rule 2.8(2)(b). 675 N.W.2d at 542 .

2003The court first noted “that not only did [the defendant] fail to make a written waiver or an oral waiver in open court, but the record also fails to reflect the approval of any waiver by the district judge.” Id. at 1421 .

1942Lehman v. Hawks, 121 Ind. 541 ( 23 N. E. 670); Moore v. City of Platteville, 78 Wis. 650 (47 N. W, *273 1055); State v. Jones, 7 Nev. 408 ; Boggs v. United States, 10 Okl. 424 . ( 63 Pac. 969 , 65 Pac. 927 ).

1942Lehman v. Hawks, 121 Ind. 541 ( 23 N. E. 670); Moore v. City of Platteville, 78 Wis. 650 (47 N. W, *273 1055); State v. Jones, 7 Nev. 408 ; Boggs v. United States, 10 Okl. 424 . ( 63 Pac. 969 , 65 Pac. 927 ).

1942Lehman v. Hawks, 121 Ind. 541 ( 23 N. E. 670); Moore v. City of Platteville, 78 Wis. 650 (47 N. W, *273 1055); State v. Jones, 7 Nev. 408 ; Boggs v. United States, 10 Okl. 424 . ( 63 Pac. 969 , 65 Pac. 927 ).

1942Lehman v. Hawks, 121 Ind. 541 ( 23 N. E. 670); Moore v. City of Platteville, 78 Wis. 650 (47 N. W, *273 1055); State v. Jones, 7 Nev. 408 ; Boggs v. United States, 10 Okl. 424 . ( 63 Pac. 969 , 65 Pac. 927 ).

1942In the case of Burton v. Neill, 140 Iowa 141, 145 , 118 N. W. 302, 303 , 17 Ann.

1942In the case of Burton v. Neill, 140 Iowa 141, 145 , 118 N. W. 302, 303 , 17 Ann.

1942Lehman v. Hawks, 121 Ind. 541 ( 23 N. E. 670); Moore v. City of Platteville, 78 Wis. 650 (47 N. W, *273 1055); State v. Jones, 7 Nev. 408 ; Boggs v. United States, 10 Okl. 424 . ( 63 Pac. 969 , 65 Pac. 927 ).

1928The trial court was quite specific in its direction to the jury that the challenged evidence as to both witnesses in. this particular should not be considered “for any purpose.” The record is silent whether or not the court, in the instructions given to the jury, referred further to this matter; but even in the absence of further instruction, the jury understood the meaning and intent of the oral instruction that the testimony “was not to he considered by them in reaching a verdict.” State v. Foster, 136 Iowa 527 . - In the case of State v. Lyons, 202 Iowa 1195 , the trial court in the first i

1928The trial court was quite specific in its direction to the jury that the challenged evidence as to both witnesses in. this particular should not be considered “for any purpose.” The record is silent whether or not the court, in the instructions given to the jury, referred further to this matter; but even in the absence of further instruction, the jury understood the meaning and intent of the oral instruction that the testimony “was not to he considered by them in reaching a verdict.” State v. Foster, 136 Iowa 527 . - In the case of State v. Lyons, 202 Iowa 1195 , the trial court in the first i

1923The situation is quite similar to the one before us in the case of Singmaster & Son v. Robinson, 181 Iowa 522 , wherein we said: “The defendant also offered to testify to an oral waiver of the qualifications of the written guarantee immediately after the same wras signed, and before the notes and mortgage were signed.

1897Rep. 210 ); Dick v. Insurance Co. (Wis.) 65 N. W.

1897Rep. 869 ), it was said: “It is also well settled that .an insurance company cannot so limit its capacity to contract, by general stipulations against. waiver of conditions, or that its contracts or waivers must be in writing, that it cannot by its agents make an oral contract or an oral waiver not forbidden by the statute of frauds." The rule thus stated finds support in the following cases: Robinson v. Berkey, 100 Iowa, 136 ; Peterson v. Machine Co., 97 Iowa, 148 ; Osborne v. Backer, 81 Iowa, 378 ; Renier v. Insurance Co., 74 Wis. 89 ( 42 N. W.

1897Rep. 869 ), it was said: “It is also well settled that .an insurance company cannot so limit its capacity to contract, by general stipulations against. waiver of conditions, or that its contracts or waivers must be in writing, that it cannot by its agents make an oral contract or an oral waiver not forbidden by the statute of frauds." The rule thus stated finds support in the following cases: Robinson v. Berkey, 100 Iowa, 136 ; Peterson v. Machine Co., 97 Iowa, 148 ; Osborne v. Backer, 81 Iowa, 378 ; Renier v. Insurance Co., 74 Wis. 89 ( 42 N. W.

1897Rep. 869 ), it was said: “It is also well settled that .an insurance company cannot so limit its capacity to contract, by general stipulations against. waiver of conditions, or that its contracts or waivers must be in writing, that it cannot by its agents make an oral contract or an oral waiver not forbidden by the statute of frauds." The rule thus stated finds support in the following cases: Robinson v. Berkey, 100 Iowa, 136 ; Peterson v. Machine Co., 97 Iowa, 148 ; Osborne v. Backer, 81 Iowa, 378 ; Renier v. Insurance Co., 74 Wis. 89 ( 42 N. W.