7 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Iowa v. Kelvin Plain Sr.green1 sentence2026State v. Plain, 898 N.W.2d 801, 811 (Iowa 2017). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonasgreen1 sentence2026Unlike the potential juror in State v. Jonas, 904 N.W.2d 566, 575 (Iowa 2017), who expressed actual bias against gay people in a pretrial questionnaire and during voir dire, R.L. simply reported that he had learned about Walker’s guilty plea to a felon in possession charge. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Henninggreen1 sentence2026Cf. State v. Henning, 545 N.W.2d 322, 325 (Iowa 1996) (finding juror misconduct sufficient to warrant a new trial).3 And under paragraph (o), R.L.’s assurances that he would not be swayed by his exposure to the damaging information and would keep it secret 2 This situation differs from State v. Winters, where we held a juror’s knowledge that the defendant “had previously been arrested for aggressive or violent things” was not enough to sustain a challenge for cause under Rule 2.18(5)(k). | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Walker, 572 N.W.2d at 590 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Waterburygreen2 sentences1984After citing the Walker rule, we stated in State v. Waterbury, 307 N.W.2d 45, 51 (Iowa 1981) (citations omitted): But in this case defendants were thoroughly apprised of the evidence to be presented by this witness’s testimony two months before trial. 1984After citing the Walker rule, we stated in State v. Waterbury, 307 N.W.2d 45, 51 (Iowa 1981) (citations omitted): But in this case defendants were thoroughly apprised of the evidence to be presented by this witness’s testimony two months before trial. | 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. Lucas
green
1 sentence2018Because a postconviction-relief proceeding is the appropriate forum in which to conduct such a hearing, see id., we preserve Walker’s ineffective-assistance claim. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Daniel Lado v. State of Iowa
green
1 sentence2017Nothing suggests Walker ever personally received such notice, and the claim that his attorney did—and then did nothing about it—is what supports Walker’s claim his counsel was ineffective. 5 In Lado, the PCR applicant’s case was dismissed after the applicant’s counsel had received notice the action would be dismissed for want of prosecution (pursuant to rule 1.944). 804 N.W.2d at 250 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Walker
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 526-27 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Schmitz
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 526–27. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Barber v. Page
green
2 sentences1986He argues that the State had a duty to attempt to obtain a waiver of Walker’s privilege by granting her immunity, by plea negotiations, or by some other means, as “a good faith effort to make [her] available to testify.” He cites Barber, 390 U.S. at 724-25 , 88 S.Ct. at 1322 , 20 L.Ed.2d at 260 , as authority for the general proposition that the State has a duty to make a reasonable effort to make the witness available. 1986He argues that the State had a duty to attempt to obtain a waiver of Walker’s privilege by granting her immunity, by plea negotiations, or by some other means, as “a good faith effort to make [her] available to testify.” He cites Barber, 390 U.S. at 724-25 , 88 S.Ct. at 1322 , 20 L.Ed.2d at 260 , as authority for the general proposition that the State has a duty to make a reasonable effort to make the witness available. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Walker
green
2 sentences1983It need only be sufficient “to alert defendant generally to the source and nature of the evidence against him.” 281 N.W.2d at 614 . 1983It need only be sufficient “to alert defendant generally to the source and nature of the evidence against him.” 281 N.W.2d at 614 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.