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 1 courts 2021–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sager v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.green2 sentences2024Ins., 680 N.W.2d 8, 14 (Iowa 2004) (noting that, under our “adversarial” system, “we generally consider only questions argued by the parties”; as a result, our opinions “should not be understood as all- encompassing court-approved treatises on a given body of law” (emphasis omitted)), superseded by statute on other grounds, 2005 Iowa Acts ch. 70, §§ 19– 21 (codified at Iowa Code § 515.109 (2007)). 2024Ins., 680 N.W.2d 8, 14 (Iowa 2004) (noting that under 24 our “adversarial” system, “we generally consider only questions argued by the parties”; as a result, our opinions “should not be understood as all-encompassing court-approved treatises on a given body of law” (emphasis omitted)), superseded by statute on other grounds, 2005 Iowa Acts ch. 70, §§ 19–21 (codified at Iowa Code § 515.109 (2007)), I concur in the judgment. | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Sineneng-Smithgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Thompson, 954 N.W.2d 402 , 409 n.2 (Iowa 2021) (rejecting the dissent’s views as “contrary to the adversarial process” because “[o]ur system ‘is designed around the premise that [parties represented by competent counsel] know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and argument entitling them to relief’ ” (second alteration in original) (second quoting United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371 , 375–76 (2020))); accord Clark v. Sweeney, 607 U.S. 7 , 9 (2025) (per curiam) (discussing the party-presentation principle). 2025See, e.g., State v. Struve, 956 N.W.2d 90 , 99 n.2 (Iowa 2021) (“[O]ur system ‘is designed around the premise that [parties represented by competent counsel] know what is best for them, and are responsible for advancing the facts and argument entitling them to relief.’ ” (alterations in original) (quoting United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371 , 375–76 (2020))). | 2 | 2 |
Press-Citizen Company, Inc. v. University of Iowagreen2 sentences2021See Press-Citizen Co. v. Univ. of Iowa, 817 N.W.2d 480, 493 (Iowa 2012) (“The amici curiae urge that it would violate federal and state constitutional provisions if access to 27 public documents could depend upon the knowledge or identity of the requester. 2021See Press-Citizen Co. v. Univ. of Iowa, 817 N.W.2d 480, 493 (Iowa 2012) (“The amici curiae urge that it would violate federal and state constitutional provisions if access to 27 public documents could depend upon the knowledge or identity of the requester. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Sineneng-Smithgreen2 sentences2021Not only is the majority’s disposition of the case unfair and contrary to our own precedents, it is contrary to the general rule: “It is . . . clear beyond hope of contradiction that amici cannot ‘interject into a case issues which the litigants, whatever their reasons might be, have chosen to ignore.’ ” Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 , 19 n.4 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Lane v. First Nat’l Bank of Bos., 871 F.2d 166, 175 (1st Cir. 1989)); see, e.g., Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1580–82 (vacating court of appeals’ judgment where court of appeals ignored the par 2021Not only is the majority’s disposition of the case unfair and contrary to our own precedents, it is contrary to the general rule: “It is . . . clear beyond hope of contradiction that amici cannot ‘interject into a case issues which the litigants, whatever their reasons might be, have chosen to ignore.’ ” Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 , 19 n.4 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Lane v. First Nat’l Bank of Bos., 871 F.2d 166, 175 (1st Cir. 1989)); see, e.g., Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1580–82 (vacating court of appeals’ judgment where court of appeals ignored the par | 2 | 2 |
Joan F. Lane, D/B/A Lane & Co. v. The First National Bank of Bostongreen2 sentences2021Not only is the majority’s disposition of the case unfair and contrary to our own precedents, it is contrary to the general rule: “It is . . . clear beyond hope of contradiction that amici cannot ‘interject into a case issues which the litigants, whatever their reasons might be, have chosen to ignore.’ ” Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 , 19 n.4 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Lane v. First Nat’l Bank of Bos., 871 F.2d 166, 175 (1st Cir. 1989)); see, e.g., Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1580–82 (vacating court of appeals’ judgment where court of appeals ignored the par 2021Not only is the majority’s disposition of the case unfair and contrary to our own precedents, it is contrary to the general rule: “It is . . . clear beyond hope of contradiction that amici cannot ‘interject into a case issues which the litigants, whatever their reasons might be, have chosen to ignore.’ ” Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 , 19 n.4 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Lane v. First Nat’l Bank of Bos., 871 F.2d 166, 175 (1st Cir. 1989)); see, e.g., Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1580–82 (vacating court of appeals’ judgment where court of appeals ignored the par | 2 | 2 |
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2021Not only is the majority’s disposition of the case unfair and contrary to our own precedents, it is contrary to the general rule: “It is . . . clear beyond hope of contradiction that amici cannot ‘interject into a case issues which the litigants, whatever their reasons might be, have chosen to ignore.’ ” Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 , 19 n.4 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Lane v. First Nat’l Bank of Bos., 871 F.2d 166, 175 (1st Cir. 1989)); see, e.g., Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1580–82 (vacating court of appeals’ judgment where court of appeals ignored the par 2021Not only is the majority’s disposition of the case unfair and contrary to our own precedents, it is contrary to the general rule: “It is . . . clear beyond hope of contradiction that amici cannot ‘interject into a case issues which the litigants, whatever their reasons might be, have chosen to ignore.’ ” Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 , 19 n.4 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Lane v. First Nat’l Bank of Bos., 871 F.2d 166, 175 (1st Cir. 1989)); see, e.g., Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1580–82 (vacating court of appeals’ judgment where court of appeals ignored the par | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.Com, LLC
green
2 sentences2021Not only is the majority’s disposition of the case unfair and contrary to our own precedents, it is contrary to the general rule: “It is . . . clear beyond hope of contradiction that amici cannot ‘interject into a case issues which the litigants, whatever their reasons might be, have chosen to ignore.’ ” Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 , 19 n.4 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Lane v. First Nat’l Bank of Bos., 871 F.2d 166, 175 (1st Cir. 1989)); see, e.g., Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1580–82 (vacating court of appeals’ judgment where court of appeals ignored the par 2021Not only is the majority’s disposition of the case unfair and contrary to our own precedents, it is contrary to the general rule: “It is . . . clear beyond hope of contradiction that amici cannot ‘interject into a case issues which the litigants, whatever their reasons might be, have chosen to ignore.’ ” Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 , 19 n.4 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Lane v. First Nat’l Bank of Bos., 871 F.2d 166, 175 (1st Cir. 1989)); see, e.g., Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1580–82 (vacating court of appeals’ judgment where court of appeals ignored the par | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Not only is the majority’s disposition of the case unfair and contrary to our own precedents, it is contrary to the general rule: “It is . . . clear beyond hope of contradiction that amici cannot ‘interject into a case issues which the litigants, whatever their reasons might be, have chosen to ignore.’ ” Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 , 19 n.4 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Lane v. First Nat’l Bank of Bos., 871 F.2d 166, 175 (1st Cir. 1989)); see, e.g., Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1580–82 (vacating court of appeals’ judgment where court of appeals ignored the par 2021Not only is the majority’s disposition of the case unfair and contrary to our own precedents, it is contrary to the general rule: “It is . . . clear beyond hope of contradiction that amici cannot ‘interject into a case issues which the litigants, whatever their reasons might be, have chosen to ignore.’ ” Jane Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, 817 F.3d 12 , 19 n.4 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Lane v. First Nat’l Bank of Bos., 871 F.2d 166, 175 (1st Cir. 1989)); see, e.g., Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. at ___, 140 S. Ct. at 1580–82 (vacating court of appeals’ judgment where court of appeals ignored the par | 2 | 2021–2021 |
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.