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 1907–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rosenberg v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1978Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 370-371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304, 1307 (holding failure to require production of letter was “empty of consequence” — “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.”). 1978Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 370-371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304, 1307 (holding failure to require production of letter was “empty of consequence” — “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.”). | 1 | 2 |
Killian v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.” In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.” In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 | 1 | 2 |
State v. Cashengreen1 sentence2025See Cashen, 666 N.W.2d at 572 (noting proximity, although not dispositive, is “pertinent” to the possession analysis). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Maxwellgreen1 sentence2014See State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 193 (Iowa 2008); see, e.g., State v. Carter, 696 N.W.2d 31, 39 (Iowa 2005) (“Contrary to the State’s contention, we find that Carter did not have actual possession of the controlled substance because it was not found on his person.”); State v. Kemp, 688 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Iowa 2004) (“Actual possession occurs when the controlled substance is found on the defendant’s person.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Bash, 670 N.W.2d at 138 (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bashgreen1 sentence2014See State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 193 (Iowa 2008); see, e.g., State v. Carter, 696 N.W.2d 31, 39 (Iowa 2005) (“Contrary to the State’s contention, we find that Carter did not have actual possession of the controlled substance because it was not found on his person.”); State v. Kemp, 688 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Iowa 2004) (“Actual possession occurs when the controlled substance is found on the defendant’s person.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Bash, 670 N.W.2d at 138 (same). | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. William Arthur Dewittgreen1 sentence2014In State v. Dewitt, 811 N.W.2d 460, 474-75 (Iowa 2012), our supreme court stated: Vehicles, however, alter the exclusive possession rule because of its modern role as a shared accommodation. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen1 sentence2014See State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 193 (Iowa 2008); see, e.g., State v. Carter, 696 N.W.2d 31, 39 (Iowa 2005) (“Contrary to the State’s contention, we find that Carter did not have actual possession of the controlled substance because it was not found on his person.”); State v. Kemp, 688 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Iowa 2004) (“Actual possession occurs when the controlled substance is found on the defendant’s person.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Bash, 670 N.W.2d at 138 (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kempgreen1 sentence2014See State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185, 193 (Iowa 2008); see, e.g., State v. Carter, 696 N.W.2d 31, 39 (Iowa 2005) (“Contrary to the State’s contention, we find that Carter did not have actual possession of the controlled substance because it was not found on his person.”); State v. Kemp, 688 N.W.2d 785, 789 (Iowa 2004) (“Actual possession occurs when the controlled substance is found on the defendant’s person.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Bash, 670 N.W.2d at 138 (same). | 1 | 1 |
Killian v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1978See also Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231 , 82 S.Ct. 302 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256 , reh. den. 368 U.S. 979 , 82 S.Ct. 476 , 7 L.Ed.2d 441 . 1978See also Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231 , 82 S.Ct. 302 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256 , reh. den. 368 U.S. 979 , 82 S.Ct. 476 , 7 L.Ed.2d 441 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lloyd v. United States
green
2 sentences1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: "Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness' admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter." In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.” In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Valentine John Karp v. United States
green
2 sentences1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: "Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness' admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter." In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.” In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
United States v. Eugene James Allegrucci
green
2 sentences1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: "Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness' admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter." In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.” In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
United States v. Elliott Kahaner, Antonio Corallo and James Vincent Keogh
green
2 sentences1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: "Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness' admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter." In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.” In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Floyd Rairdon Hayes v. United States of America, Cecil H. Bennett v. United States of America, Stanley Burke Clevenger v. United States
green
2 sentences1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: "Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness' admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter." In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.” In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
United States v. Nicholas Sten
green
2 sentences1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: "Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness' admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter." In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.” In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
James Milton Lewis v. United States
green
2 sentences1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: "Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness' admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter." In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.” In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
United States v. Charles W. Pope
green
2 sentences1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: "Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness' admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter." In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.” In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
United States v. Frank Crisona, Anthony Delyra, John Delyra, and Frank Lloyd Parks
green
2 sentences1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: "Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness' admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter." In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.” In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
United States v. Earl Missler
green
2 sentences1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: "Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness' admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter." In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.” In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
United States v. Irwin Fruchtman
green
2 sentences1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: "Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness' admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter." In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 1971The Court stated in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367, 371 , 79 S.Ct. 1231, 1234 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 , 1307: “Since the same information that would have been afforded had the document been given to defendant was already in the possession of the defense by way of the witness’ admissions while testifying, it would deny reason to entertain the belief that defendant could have been prejudiced by not having had opportunity to inspect the letter.” In the same vein, see Killian v. United States, 368 U.S. 231, 243 , 82 S.Ct. 302, 309 , 7 L.Ed.2d 256, 265 ; United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Marray v. Quigley
green
1 sentence1912Freeman on Cotenancy; sections 221, 235, 373; 1 Cyc. 1072, 1076; Murray v. Quigley, 119 Iowa, 6 ; Crawford v. Meis, 123 Iowa, 6Í0;.McCarthy v. Colton, 134 Iowa, 658 . by. virtue of the will of her husband, and became thereby a tenant in common and remained such during her lifetime; that, as such tenant in common, she could obtain no title adverse to that if any debt existed in her favor, which she had the It is conceded that George Emslie and Annie E. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
McCarthy v. Colton
neutral
1 sentence1912Freeman on Cotenancy; sections 221, 235, 373; 1 Cyc. 1072, 1076; Murray v. Quigley, 119 Iowa, 6 ; Crawford v. Meis, 123 Iowa, 6Í0;.McCarthy v. Colton, 134 Iowa, 658 . by. virtue of the will of her husband, and became thereby a tenant in common and remained such during her lifetime; that, as such tenant in common, she could obtain no title adverse to that if any debt existed in her favor, which she had the It is conceded that George Emslie and Annie E. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Fairfield v. Barbour
neutral
2 sentences1907Wheeler v. Laird, supra; Potter v. Smith, 68 Mich. 212 ( 35 N. W. 916 ); Fairfield v. Barbour, 51 Mich. 57 ( 16 N. W. 230 ); Shafer v. Hauser, 111 Mich. 622 ( 70 N. W. 136 , 35 L. 1907Wheeler v. Laird, supra; Potter v. Smith, 68 Mich. 212 ( 35 N. W. 916 ); Fairfield v. Barbour, 51 Mich. 57 ( 16 N. W. 230 ); Shafer v. Hauser, 111 Mich. 622 ( 70 N. W. 136 , 35 L. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Potter v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences1907Wheeler v. Laird, supra; Potter v. Smith, 68 Mich. 212 ( 35 N. W. 916 ); Fairfield v. Barbour, 51 Mich. 57 ( 16 N. W. 230 ); Shafer v. Hauser, 111 Mich. 622 ( 70 N. W. 136 , 35 L. 1907Wheeler v. Laird, supra; Potter v. Smith, 68 Mich. 212 ( 35 N. W. 916 ); Fairfield v. Barbour, 51 Mich. 57 ( 16 N. W. 230 ); Shafer v. Hauser, 111 Mich. 622 ( 70 N. W. 136 , 35 L. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Schafer v. Hauser
green
2 sentences1907Wheeler v. Laird, supra; Potter v. Smith, 68 Mich. 212 ( 35 N. W. 916 ); Fairfield v. Barbour, 51 Mich. 57 ( 16 N. W. 230 ); Shafer v. Hauser, 111 Mich. 622 ( 70 N. W. 136 , 35 L. 1907Wheeler v. Laird, supra; Potter v. Smith, 68 Mich. 212 ( 35 N. W. 916 ); Fairfield v. Barbour, 51 Mich. 57 ( 16 N. W. 230 ); Shafer v. Hauser, 111 Mich. 622 ( 70 N. W. 136 , 35 L. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
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.