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.
6 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Barsnessgreen2 sentences2021Friedman, 473 N.W.2d at 835 (“[A]n individual has the right, upon request, 29 to a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal advice before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing.”); see also Gursey, 239 N.E.2d at 353 (“The privilege of consulting with counsel concerning the exercise of legal rights should not, however, extend so far as to palpably impair or nullify the statutory procedure requiring drivers to choose between taking the test or losing their licenses.”); City of Roseburg v. Dykstra, 854 P.2d 985 , 986–87 (Or. 2021Friedman, 473 N.W.2d at 835 (“[A]n individual has the right, upon request, 29 to a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal advice before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing.”); see also Gursey, 239 N.E.2d at 353 (“The privilege of consulting with counsel concerning the exercise of legal rights should not, however, extend so far as to palpably impair or nullify the statutory procedure requiring drivers to choose between taking the test or losing their licenses.”); City of Roseburg v. Dykstra, 854 P.2d 985 , 986–87 (Or. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Gurseygreen2 sentences2021Friedman, 473 N.W.2d at 835 (“[A]n individual has the right, upon request, 29 to a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal advice before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing.”); see also Gursey, 239 N.E.2d at 353 (“The privilege of consulting with counsel concerning the exercise of legal rights should not, however, extend so far as to palpably impair or nullify the statutory procedure requiring drivers to choose between taking the test or losing their licenses.”); City of Roseburg v. Dykstra, 854 P.2d 985 , 986–87 (Or. 2021Friedman, 473 N.W.2d at 835 (“[A]n individual has the right, upon request, 29 to a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal advice before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing.”); see also Gursey, 239 N.E.2d at 353 (“The privilege of consulting with counsel concerning the exercise of legal rights should not, however, extend so far as to palpably impair or nullify the statutory procedure requiring drivers to choose between taking the test or losing their licenses.”); City of Roseburg v. Dykstra, 854 P.2d 985 , 986–87 (Or. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fischergreen2 sentences2020To support his argument, Cook relies on selective language from our supreme court’s ruling in State v. Fischer, that “[t]he request itself . . . is statutorily required to be in writing and signed by the driver prior to the administration of the test.” 785 N.W.2d 697, 705 (Iowa 2010). 2020But the only issue presented in that case was “whether a law enforcement officer can use a computer screen to make a ‘written request,’ to withdraw a bodily substance from a driver expected of operating while intoxicated.” Id. at 698 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dulaneygreen1 sentence2011See State v. Bloomer, 618 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2000) (although driver stated he was not refusing breath test when he requested urine test instead, his ultimate failure to take breath test amounted to refusal); State v. Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d 787, 789 (Iowa 1992) (motorist’s lack of response to request for chemical test and subsequent statement to “[g]et your search warrant” was a failure to cooperate amounting to implied refusal); Hoppe v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 402 N.W.2d 392, 393 (Iowa 1987) (consent followed by abusive and belligerent behavior preventing the administration of the test deemed | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence2011See State v. Bloomer, 618 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2000) (although driver stated he was not refusing breath test when he requested urine test instead, his ultimate failure to take breath test amounted to refusal); State v. Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d 787, 789 (Iowa 1992) (motorist’s lack of response to request for chemical test and subsequent statement to “[g]et your search warrant” was a failure to cooperate amounting to implied refusal); Hoppe v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 402 N.W.2d 392, 393 (Iowa 1987) (consent followed by abusive and belligerent behavior preventing the administration of the test deemed | 1 | 1 |
Buda v. Fultongreen2 sentences2011Safety, 227 N.W.2d 155, 157 (Iowa 1975) (consent to blood test con *596 ditioned on having test administered at hospital of motorist’s choosing was refusal); Buda v. Fulton, 261 Iowa 981, 991 , 157 N.W.2d 336, 342 (Iowa 1968) (plaintiffs statements reflecting a total failure to cooperate were “tantamount to a declination”). 2011Safety, 227 N.W.2d 155, 157 (Iowa 1975) (consent to blood test con *596 ditioned on having test administered at hospital of motorist’s choosing was refusal); Buda v. Fulton, 261 Iowa 981, 991 , 157 N.W.2d 336, 342 (Iowa 1968) (plaintiffs statements reflecting a total failure to cooperate were “tantamount to a declination”). | 1 | 1 |
Hoppe v. Iowa Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Divisiongreen1 sentence2011See State v. Bloomer, 618 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2000) (although driver stated he was not refusing breath test when he requested urine test instead, his ultimate failure to take breath test amounted to refusal); State v. Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d 787, 789 (Iowa 1992) (motorist’s lack of response to request for chemical test and subsequent statement to “[g]et your search warrant” was a failure to cooperate amounting to implied refusal); Hoppe v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 402 N.W.2d 392, 393 (Iowa 1987) (consent followed by abusive and belligerent behavior preventing the administration of the test deemed | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bloomergreen1 sentence2011See State v. Bloomer, 618 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2000) (although driver stated he was not refusing breath test when he requested urine test instead, his ultimate failure to take breath test amounted to refusal); State v. Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d 787, 789 (Iowa 1992) (motorist’s lack of response to request for chemical test and subsequent statement to “[g]et your search warrant” was a failure to cooperate amounting to implied refusal); Hoppe v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 402 N.W.2d 392, 393 (Iowa 1987) (consent followed by abusive and belligerent behavior preventing the administration of the test deemed | 1 | 1 |
McCrea v. Iowa Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence2011See State v. Bloomer, 618 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2000) (although driver stated he was not refusing breath test when he requested urine test instead, his ultimate failure to take breath test amounted to refusal); State v. Dulaney, 493 N.W.2d 787, 789 (Iowa 1992) (motorist’s lack of response to request for chemical test and subsequent statement to “[g]et your search warrant” was a failure to cooperate amounting to implied refusal); Hoppe v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 402 N.W.2d 392, 393 (Iowa 1987) (consent followed by abusive and belligerent behavior preventing the administration of the test deemed | 1 | 1 |
Morgan v. Iowa Department of Public Safetygreen1 sentence2011Safety, 227 N.W.2d 155, 157 (Iowa 1975) (consent to blood test con *596 ditioned on having test administered at hospital of motorist’s choosing was refusal); Buda v. Fulton, 261 Iowa 981, 991 , 157 N.W.2d 336, 342 (Iowa 1968) (plaintiffs statements reflecting a total failure to cooperate were “tantamount to a declination”). | 1 | 1 |
Willis v. Stategreen2 sentences1988See, e.g., State v. Armstrong, 236 Kan. 290, 294 , 689 P.2d 897, 901 (1984); Willis v. State, 302 Md. 363, 380 , 488 A.2d 171, 180 (1985). 1988See, e.g., State v. Armstrong, 236 Kan. 290, 294 , 689 P.2d 897, 901 (1984); Willis v. State, 302 Md. 363, 380 , 488 A.2d 171, 180 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Armstronggreen2 sentences1988See, e.g., State v. Armstrong, 236 Kan. 290, 294 , 689 P.2d 897, 901 (1984); Willis v. State, 302 Md. 363, 380 , 488 A.2d 171, 180 (1985). 1988See, e.g., State v. Armstrong, 236 Kan. 290, 294 , 689 P.2d 897, 901 (1984); Willis v. State, 302 Md. 363, 380 , 488 A.2d 171, 180 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Roseburg v. Dykstra
neutral
2 sentences2021Friedman, 473 N.W.2d at 835 (“[A]n individual has the right, upon request, 29 to a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal advice before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing.”); see also Gursey, 239 N.E.2d at 353 (“The privilege of consulting with counsel concerning the exercise of legal rights should not, however, extend so far as to palpably impair or nullify the statutory procedure requiring drivers to choose between taking the test or losing their licenses.”); City of Roseburg v. Dykstra, 854 P.2d 985 , 986–87 (Or. 2021Friedman, 473 N.W.2d at 835 (“[A]n individual has the right, upon request, 29 to a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal advice before deciding whether to submit to chemical testing.”); see also Gursey, 239 N.E.2d at 353 (“The privilege of consulting with counsel concerning the exercise of legal rights should not, however, extend so far as to palpably impair or nullify the statutory procedure requiring drivers to choose between taking the test or losing their licenses.”); City of Roseburg v. Dykstra, 854 P.2d 985 , 986–87 (Or. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Cooper
green
1 sentence1983Id. *29 In the present case, the polygraph operator virtually conceded deception in the administration of the test. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.