53 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 1864–1986 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dutcher v. Lewisgreen2 sentences1986See Goetzman v. Wichern, 327 N.W.2d 742, 745 (Iowa 1982) (quoting Dutcher v. Lewis, 221 N.W.2d 755, 759 (Iowa 1974) ("the test is whether the exception taken alerted the trial court to the error which is urged on appeal.")). 1986See Goetzman v. Wichern, 327 N.W.2d 742, 745 (Iowa 1982) (quoting Dutcher v. Lewis, 221 N.W.2d 755, 759 (Iowa 1974) (“the test is whether the exception taken alerted the trial court to the error which is urged on appeal.”)). | 1 | 1 |
Goetzman v. Wicherngreen2 sentences1986See Goetzman v. Wichern, 327 N.W.2d 742, 745 (Iowa 1982) (quoting Dutcher v. Lewis, 221 N.W.2d 755, 759 (Iowa 1974) ("the test is whether the exception taken alerted the trial court to the error which is urged on appeal.")). 1986See Goetzman v. Wichern, 327 N.W.2d 742, 745 (Iowa 1982) (quoting Dutcher v. Lewis, 221 N.W.2d 755, 759 (Iowa 1974) (“the test is whether the exception taken alerted the trial court to the error which is urged on appeal.”)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schriergreen1 sentence1984State v. Schrier, 283 N.W.2d 338, 341-42 (Iowa 1979). | 1 | 1 |
Grandview Baptist Church v. Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen1 sentence1981Recently, in Grandview Baptist Church v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 301 N.W.2d 704, 709 (Iowa 1981) we held that reliance upon a building permit during the time allowed for appeal to the board of adjustment does not give the permit holder vested rights which would deprive objectors of their right to appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thornburghgreen2 sentences1976The court adverted to the absence of the language found objectionable in Hansen regarding evidence to rebut the inference: “The instruction is not subject to the attack directed to the paragraph quoted earlier from the instruction considered in Hansen and those cases following that decision since it does not at any point convert the inference arising from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property into a conclusive presumption of guilt if evidence is not produced to rebut it.” 220 N.W.2d at 586 (italics added). 1976The court adverted to the absence of the language found objectionable in Hansen regarding evidence to rebut the inference: "The instruction is not subject to the attack directed to the paragraph quoted earlier from the instruction considered in Hansen and those cases following that decision since it does not at any point convert the inference arising from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property into a conclusive presumption of guilt if evidence is not produced to rebut it. " 220 N.W.2d at 586 (italics added). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lavingreen1 sentence1974In its brief, the State cites two decisions to support this contention: State v. Ramos, 260 Iowa 590, 597 , 149 N.W.2d 862, 866 , where this court stated the “ * * * proper method of raising constitutional objection to the information is by demurrer, * * * [citing authority]” and State v. Lavin, 204 N.W.2d 844, 849 (Iowa 1973), where the court also speaks in terms of demurrers to informations. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Holdernessgreen1 sentence1972We need not pursue the merits of defendant’s argument particularly in view of the following statement in State v. Niccum, 190 N.W.2d at 822 , decided October 13, 1971, and repeated in State v. Holderness, 191 N.W.2d 642, 646-647 (Iowa 1971): “In determining whether the State has sustained its burden of establishing a valid waiver by defendant of his constitutionally protected rights in the absence of an express waiver, this court examines the totality of circumstances — the attendant facts of the case — as shown in the record. | 1 | 1 |
Elliott v. Wilkinsongreen2 sentences1969Elliott v. Wilkinson, 248 Iowa 667, 668, 669 , 81 N.W.2d 925, 926 , and citations. 1969Elliott v. Wilkinson, 248 Iowa 667, 668, 669 , 81 N.W.2d 925, 926 , and citations. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schlatergreen2 sentences1969See on this point and generally in connection with this assigned error State v. Schlater, Iowa, 170 N.W.2d 601 (opinion filed September 5, 1969.) The question presented by the third assigned error is extensively discussed in Anno. 7 A.L.R.3d 181 . 1969See on this point and generally in connection with this assigned error State v. Schlater, Iowa, 170 N.W.2d 601 (opinion filed September 5, 1969.) The question presented by the third assigned error is extensively discussed in Anno. 7 A.L.R.3d 181 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ableygreen2 sentences1969See State v. Abley, 109 Iowa 61, 64 , 80 N.W. 225 , 46 L.R.A. 862 ; State v. Stodola, 257 Iowa 863, 866 , 134 N.W.2d 920, 922 . *49 Before considering the authorities applicable to the assigned error in question, it may be observed there is little, if any, evidence from which the jury could properly find defendant's entry into the home was with Musich's implied consent. 1969See State v. Abley, 109 Iowa 61, 64 , 80 N.W. 225 , 46 L.R.A. 862 ; State v. Stodola, 257 Iowa 863, 866 , 134 N.W.2d 920, 922 . *49 Before considering the authorities applicable to the assigned error in question, it may be observed there is little, if any, evidence from which the jury could properly find defendant's entry into the home was with Musich's implied consent. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. O'Mearagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wickman v. Illinois Central Railroad Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Ellisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Waterloo Savings Bank v. Waterloo, Cedar Falls & Northern Railroadgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Littlegreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Will Contest in the Estate of Soderlandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dunnegreen | 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. Niccum
green
2 sentences1972State v. Niccum, 190 N.W.2d 815 (Iowa); State v. Albers, 174 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa) ; State v. Loney, 163 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa); State v. Ferguson, 249 Iowa 361 , 86 N.W.2d 901 . 1972State v. Niccum, 190 N.W.2d 815 (Iowa); State v. Albers, 174 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa); State v. Loney, 163 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa); State v. Ferguson, 249 Iowa 361 , 86 N.W.2d 901 . | 2 | 1972–1972 |
Connelly v. Nolte
green
2 sentences1948See In re Will Contest of Soderland, 239 Iowa 569 , 30 N. W. 2d 128 ; Connelly v. Nolte, 237 Iowa 114 , 21 N. W. 2d 311 . 1948See In re Will Contest of Soderland, 239 Iowa 569 , 30 N. W. 2d 128 ; Connelly v. Nolte, 237 Iowa 114 , 21 N. W. 2d 311 . | 2 | 1947–1948 |
Fjelland v. Wemhoff
green
1 sentence1977Fjelland v. Wemhoff, 249 N.W.2d 634 (Iowa); Thomas Truck & Caster Co. v. Buffalo Caster & Wheel Corp., 210 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Thomas Truck & Caster Co. v. Buffalo Caster & Wheel Corp.
green
1 sentence1977Fjelland v. Wemhoff, 249 N.W.2d 634 (Iowa); Thomas Truck & Caster Co. v. Buffalo Caster & Wheel Corp., 210 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Coffee
green
2 sentences1976State v. Coffee, 182 N.W.2d 390 (Iowa); State v. Mayhew, 170 N.W.2d 608 (Iowa), second app. 183 N.W.2d 723 ; State v. Torrence, 257 Iowa 182, 131 N.W.2d 808 . 1976State v. Coffee, 182 N.W.2d 390 (Iowa); State v. Mayhew, 170 N.W.2d 608 (Iowa), second app. 183 N.W.2d 723 ; State v. Torrence, 257 Iowa 182 , 131 N.W.2d 808 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Torrence
green
2 sentences1976State v. Coffee, 182 N.W.2d 390 (Iowa); State v. Mayhew, 170 N.W.2d 608 (Iowa), second app. 183 N.W.2d 723 ; State v. Torrence, 257 Iowa 182 , 131 N.W.2d 808 . 1976State v. Coffee, 182 N.W.2d 390 (Iowa); State v. Mayhew, 170 N.W.2d 608 (Iowa), second app. 183 N.W.2d 723 ; State v. Torrence, 257 Iowa 182 , 131 N.W.2d 808 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Mayhew
green
2 sentences1976State v. Coffee, 182 N.W.2d 390 (Iowa); State v. Mayhew, 170 N.W.2d 608 (Iowa), second app. 183 N.W.2d 723 ; State v. Torrence, 257 Iowa 182, 131 N.W.2d 808 . 1976State v. Coffee, 182 N.W.2d 390 (Iowa); State v. Mayhew, 170 N.W.2d 608 (Iowa), second app. 183 N.W.2d 723 ; State v. Torrence, 257 Iowa 182 , 131 N.W.2d 808 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Mayhew
green
2 sentences1976State v. Coffee, 182 N.W.2d 390 (Iowa); State v. Mayhew, 170 N.W.2d 608 (Iowa), second app. 183 N.W.2d 723 ; State v. Torrence, 257 Iowa 182, 131 N.W.2d 808 . 1976State v. Coffee, 182 N.W.2d 390 (Iowa); State v. Mayhew, 170 N.W.2d 608 (Iowa), second app. 183 N.W.2d 723 ; State v. Torrence, 257 Iowa 182 , 131 N.W.2d 808 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Martin
green
1 sentence1975In Martin, 217 N.W.2d at 541-542 , this court held section 622.17, The Code, places the discretion as to admissibility of evidence of prior felony convictions in the judge rather than the cross-examiner and that “ * * * for the purpose of attacking the credibility of any witness, including an accused under Code § 622.17, evidence that he has been previously convicted of a felony is admissible only if (1) the felony involved dishonesty or false statement, and (2) the judge determines any danger of unfair prejudice does not substantially outweigh the probative value of such prior felony convicti | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Ramos
green
2 sentences1974In its brief, the State cites two decisions to support this contention: State v. Ramos, 260 Iowa 590, 597 , 149 N.W.2d 862, 866 , where this court stated the “ * * * proper method of raising constitutional objection to the information is by demurrer, * * * [citing authority]” and State v. Lavin, 204 N.W.2d 844, 849 (Iowa 1973), where the court also speaks in terms of demurrers to informations. 1974In its brief, the State cites two decisions to support this contention: State v. Ramos, 260 Iowa 590, 597 , 149 N.W.2d 862, 866 , where this court stated the “ * * * proper method of raising constitutional objection to the information is by demurrer, * * * [citing authority]” and State v. Lavin, 204 N.W.2d 844, 849 (Iowa 1973), where the court also speaks in terms of demurrers to informations. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Goman v. Benedik
green
2 sentences1973Goman v. Benedik, 253 Iowa 719 , 113 N.W.2d 738 , cited by the majority, does not involve an assigned error that a sudden emergency instruction should not have been given. 1973Goman v. Benedik, 253 Iowa 719 , 113 N.W.2d 738 , cited by the majority, does not involve an assigned error that a sudden emergency instruction should not have been given. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Clough
green
2 sentences1972Defendant does not appear to quarrel with the foregoing principles of law recognized in State v. Faught but argues that neither State v. Leiss, 258 Iowa 787 , 140 N.W.2d 172 , nor State v. Clough, 259 Iowa 1351 , 147 N.W.2d 847 , both decided before Miranda v. State of Arizona, supra, and relied upon by the trial court in its ruling, states the proper approach for an appellate court in reviewing an assigned error asserting a confession was not freely and voluntarily given. 1972Defendant does not appear to quarrel with the foregoing principles of law recognized in State v. Faught but argues that neither State v. Leiss, 258 Iowa 787 , 140 N.W.2d 172 , nor State v. Clough, 259 Iowa 1351 , 147 N.W.2d 847 , both decided before Miranda v. State of Arizona, supra, and relied upon by the trial court in its ruling, states the proper approach for an appellate court in reviewing an assigned error asserting a confession was not freely and voluntarily given. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Loney
green
2 sentences1972State v. Niccum, 190 N.W.2d 815 (Iowa); State v. Albers, 174 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa) ; State v. Loney, 163 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa); State v. Ferguson, 249 Iowa 361 , 86 N.W.2d 901 . 1972State v. Niccum, 190 N.W.2d 815 (Iowa); State v. Albers, 174 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa); State v. Loney, 163 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa); State v. Ferguson, 249 Iowa 361 , 86 N.W.2d 901 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Albers
green
2 sentences1972State v. Niccum, 190 N.W.2d 815 (Iowa); State v. Albers, 174 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa) ; State v. Loney, 163 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa); State v. Ferguson, 249 Iowa 361 , 86 N.W.2d 901 . 1972State v. Niccum, 190 N.W.2d 815 (Iowa); State v. Albers, 174 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa); State v. Loney, 163 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa); State v. Ferguson, 249 Iowa 361 , 86 N.W.2d 901 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Leiss
green
2 sentences1972Defendant does not appear to quarrel with the foregoing principles of law recognized in State v. Faught but argues that neither State v. Leiss, 258 Iowa 787 , 140 N.W.2d 172 , nor State v. Clough, 259 Iowa 1351 , 147 N.W.2d 847 , both decided before Miranda v. State of Arizona, supra, and relied upon by the trial court in its ruling, states the proper approach for an appellate court in reviewing an assigned error asserting a confession was not freely and voluntarily given. 1972Defendant does not appear to quarrel with the foregoing principles of law recognized in State v. Faught but argues that neither State v. Leiss, 258 Iowa 787 , 140 N.W.2d 172 , nor State v. Clough, 259 Iowa 1351 , 147 N.W.2d 847 , both decided before Miranda v. State of Arizona, supra, and relied upon by the trial court in its ruling, states the proper approach for an appellate court in reviewing an assigned error asserting a confession was not freely and voluntarily given. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Ferguson
neutral
2 sentences1972State v. Niccum, 190 N.W.2d 815 (Iowa); State v. Albers, 174 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa) ; State v. Loney, 163 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa); State v. Ferguson, 249 Iowa 361 , 86 N.W.2d 901 . 1972State v. Niccum, 190 N.W.2d 815 (Iowa); State v. Albers, 174 N.W.2d 649 (Iowa) ; State v. Loney, 163 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa); State v. Ferguson, 249 Iowa 361 , 86 N.W.2d 901 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Hansen v. Haugh
green
2 sentences1969Hansen v. Haugh, supra, 260 Iowa 236 , 149 N.W.2d 169, 173-175 , holds to the contrary, both as to constitutionality of section 785.19 and an order thereunder committing petitioner to the “Security Hospital,” a department of the men’s reformatory. 1969Hansen v. Haugh, supra, 260 Iowa 236 , 149 N.W.2d 169, 173-175 , holds to the contrary, both as to constitutionality of section 785.19 and an order thereunder committing petitioner to the “Security Hospital,” a department of the men’s reformatory. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| State v. Walker neutral | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| State v. Estrella green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| United States v. Isaac Davenport green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Harold W. Greenwell v. United States
green
2 sentences1969They are Greenwell v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 44 , 317 F.2d 108 and United States v. Davenport, 7 Cir. Ill., 312 F.2d 303 . 1969They are Greenwell v. United States, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 44 , 317 F.2d 108 and United States v. Davenport, 7 Cir. Ill., 312 F.2d 303 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Ernest L. Allen v. United States green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| State v. Linzmeyer green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
United States v. Harris
green
1 sentence1969Defendant cites Allen v. United States, 1 Cir., N.H., 349 F.2d 362 , and United States v. Harris, S.D.Cal., 155 F.Supp. 17 , for the point the court has no authority to proceed under 785.19 “where defendant is out on bond and not in custody.” We do not consider either case contrary to our holding on this assigned error. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
State v. Stodola
green
2 sentences1969See State v. Abley, 109 Iowa 61, 64 , 80 N.W. 225 , 46 L.R.A. 862 ; State v. Stodola, 257 Iowa 863, 866 , 134 N.W.2d 920, 922 . *49 Before considering the authorities applicable to the assigned error in question, it may be observed there is little, if any, evidence from which the jury could properly find defendant's entry into the home was with Musich's implied consent. 1969See State v. Abley, 109 Iowa 61, 64 , 80 N.W. 225 , 46 L.R.A. 862 ; State v. Stodola, 257 Iowa 863, 866 , 134 N.W.2d 920, 922 . *49 Before considering the authorities applicable to the assigned error in question, it may be observed there is little, if any, evidence from which the jury could properly find defendant's entry into the home was with Musich's implied consent. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Clark ex rel. Clark v. Van Vleck green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| State v. Parker green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Doerflein v. Bennett green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| State v. Loucks green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Silvia v. Pennock green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| State v. Robinson green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| State v. Bige green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| McKlveen v. Townley neutral | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Allbaugh Ex Rel. Allbaugh v. Ashby green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Williams v. Cohn green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co. green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp. green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co. green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Upp v. Darner green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| C. E. Erickson Co. v. Iowa National Bank green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.