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 2016–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
$99 Down Payment, Inc. v. Garardgreen1 sentence2021“The failure to perform a mandatory duty will invalidate subsequent proceedings, while the failure to perform a directory duty will not invalidate the subsequent proceedings unless prejudice is shown.” $99 Down Payment, Inc. v. Garard, 592 N.W.2d 691, 694 (Iowa 1999) (remanding the case after the court violated its duty and proceeded sua sponte to deny the arbitration award in contradiction to the statutory language mandating that the district court “shall confirm” the arbitration award). | 1 | 1 |
Rowan v. Everhardgreen1 sentence2018See Rowan, 554 N.W.2d at 550 (reversing district court decision dismissing tenants’ appeal of default judgment in an FED action based on belief it could “not consider issues which were never controverted or considered in the original small claims proceeding” and ruling, “Although the default judgment precludes these defendants from arguing issues of fact on the appeal, they should be permitted to argue issues of law concerning the sufficiency of the various notices and the timing of the hearing”). | 1 | 1 |
Munz v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Generally, we do not “utilize a deferential standard when persons choose to represent themselves,” see Kubik v. Burk, 540 N.W.2d 60, 63 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (finding self-represented plaintiff failed to show good cause for failing to timely designate experts when he was unaware of the timing requirement), but a self-represented party “is entitled to a liberal construction of his pleadings,” see Munz v. State, 382 N.W.2d 693, 697 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985).10 The district court acknowledged it “often required very little of self- represented litigants for the Court to deem a filing to be an answer.” | 1 | 1 |
Kubik v. Burkgreen1 sentence2017Generally, we do not “utilize a deferential standard when persons choose to represent themselves,” see Kubik v. Burk, 540 N.W.2d 60, 63 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (finding self-represented plaintiff failed to show good cause for failing to timely designate experts when he was unaware of the timing requirement), but a self-represented party “is entitled to a liberal construction of his pleadings,” see Munz v. State, 382 N.W.2d 693, 697 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985).10 The district court acknowledged it “often required very little of self- represented litigants for the Court to deem a filing to be an answer.” | 1 | 1 |
Lynn G. Lamasters Vs. State of Iowagreen1 sentence2016See Lamasters, 821 N.W.2d at 862 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2021Fontenot only cites State v. Johnson, 539 N.W.2d 160 , for authority. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Taylor v. Department of Transportation
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 522–23 (holding that while Taylor received of a hearing outside of the statutory timeframe, the delay would not invalidate subsequent proceedings unless prejudice was shown because the statute about the timing of the hearing was directory). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Brian K. Allison v. State of iowa
green
1 sentence2018Id. (interpreting the timing requirement of Iowa Code section 822.3). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Isaac
green
1 sentence2016There was no need for a timing instruction because substantial evidence established a “concurrence of the exposure . . . and the defendant’s sexual purpose.” Isaac, 756 N.W.2d at 821 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.