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 1 courts 2018–2022 3 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. Koomegreen2 sentences2022Ass’n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 257 P.3d 181 , 188–90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (applying the federal undue burden test under the Arizona Constitution even though it contains an express privacy clause); Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973 , 983–84 (Ind. 2005) (holding that Indiana’s inalienable rights clause provides protection similar to the Casey undue burden test); Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Att’y Gen., 677 N.E.2d 101 , 103–04 (Mass. 1997) (explaining that Massachusetts does not follow federal abortion precedent under the Massachusetts due process 2022Ass’n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 257 P.3d 181 , 188–90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (applying the federal undue burden test under the Arizona Constitution even though it contains an express privacy clause); Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973 , 983–84 (Ind. 2005) (holding that Indiana’s inalienable rights clause provides protection similar to the Casey undue burden test); Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Att’y Gen., 677 N.E.2d 101 , 103–04 (Mass. 1997) (explaining that Massachusetts does not follow federal abortion precedent under the Massachusetts due process | 3 | 3 |
State of Iowa v. Tommy Tyler, Jr.green2 sentences2018In the past, I have criticized our court for “freelancing under the Iowa Constitution without the benefit of an adversarial presentation.” State v. Tyler, 830 N.W.2d 288, 299 (Iowa 2013) (Mansfield, J., dissenting). 2018In the past, I have criticized our court for "freelancing under the Iowa Constitution without the benefit of an adversarial presentation." State v. Tyler , 830 N.W.2d 288 , 299 (Iowa 2013) (Mansfield, J., dissenting). | 3 | 3 |
Racing Ass'n of Central Iowa v. Fitzgeraldgreen2 sentences2018Iowa v. Fitzgerald, 675 N.W.2d 1, 16 (Iowa 2004). 11 11Besides the Casey undue burden test and the majority’s approach, there is a third alternative. 2018Iowa v. Fitzgerald, 675 N.W.2d 1, 16 (Iowa 2004). 11 11Besides the Casey undue burden test and the majority’s approach, there is a third alternative. | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey
red
2 sentences2022Yet having declared this, and thus that the strict scrutiny test that the district court applied under PPH II isn’t the correct constitutional standard, my colleagues remand the case with directions to the district court to apply “the Casey undue burden test.” This test, of course, originates from the United States Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 , 845–46 (1993) (plurality opinion). 2022Yet having declared this, and thus that the strict scrutiny test that the district court applied under PPH II isn’t the correct constitutional standard, my colleagues remand the case with directions to the district court to apply “the Casey undue burden test.” This test, of course, originates from the United States Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 , 845–46 (1993) (plurality opinion). | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and Jill Meadows v. Kimberly K. Reynolds ex rel. State of Iowa and Iowa Board of Medicine
green
2 sentences2022Id. at 240–41. 2022I, § 1. 364Hodes & Nauser, 440 P.3d at 492 . 365Id. at 494. 366Id. at 495. 367Id. (citing Planned Parenthood II, 915 N.W.2d at 239 ). 368Id. at 496. 149 E. | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Roe v. Wade
red
2 sentences2022In Casey, the Supreme Court reaffirmed several propositions of the holding in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), including that the Constitution protects a right to an abortion before “fetal viability” (referring to the date the unborn can survive outside the womb) “without undue interference from the State.” Id. at 846. 2022In Casey, the Supreme Court reaffirmed several propositions of the holding in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), including that the Constitution protects a right to an abortion before “fetal viability” (referring to the date the unborn can survive outside the womb) “without undue interference from the State.” Id. at 846. | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi
green
2 sentences2022Ass’n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 257 P.3d 181 , 188–90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (applying the federal undue burden test under the Arizona Constitution even though it contains an express privacy clause); Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973 , 983–84 (Ind. 2005) (holding that Indiana’s inalienable rights clause provides protection similar to the Casey undue burden test); Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Att’y Gen., 677 N.E.2d 101 , 103–04 (Mass. 1997) (explaining that Massachusetts does not follow federal abortion precedent under the Massachusetts due process 2022Ass’n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 257 P.3d 181 , 188–90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (applying the federal undue burden test under the Arizona Constitution even though it contains an express privacy clause); Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973 , 983–84 (Ind. 2005) (holding that Indiana’s inalienable rights clause provides protection similar to the Casey undue burden test); Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Att’y Gen., 677 N.E.2d 101 , 103–04 (Mass. 1997) (explaining that Massachusetts does not follow federal abortion precedent under the Massachusetts due process | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Hodes & Nauser, MDS, P.A. v. Schmidt
green
2 sentences2022I, § 1. 364Hodes & Nauser, 440 P.3d at 492 . 365Id. at 494. 366Id. at 495. 367Id. (citing Planned Parenthood II, 915 N.W.2d at 239 ). 368Id. at 496. 149 E. 2022I, § 1. 364Hodes, 440 P.3d at 492 . 365Id. at 494. 366Id. at 495. 367Id. (citing Planned Parenthood II, 915 N.W.2d at 239 ). 368Id. at 496. 149 E. | 3 | 2022–2022 |
Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. American Ass'n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists
green
2 sentences2022Ass’n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 257 P.3d 181 , 188–90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (applying the federal undue burden test under the Arizona Constitution even though it contains an express privacy clause); Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973 , 983–84 (Ind. 2005) (holding that Indiana’s inalienable rights clause provides protection similar to the Casey undue burden test); Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Att’y Gen., 677 N.E.2d 101 , 103–04 (Mass. 1997) (explaining that Massachusetts does not follow federal abortion precedent under the Massachusetts due process 2022Ass’n of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 257 P.3d 181 , 188–90 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011) (applying the federal undue burden test under the Arizona Constitution even though it contains an express privacy clause); Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973 , 983–84 (Ind. 2005) (holding that Indiana’s inalienable rights clause provides protection similar to the Casey undue burden test); Planned Parenthood League of Mass., Inc. v. Att’y Gen., 677 N.E.2d 101 , 103–04 (Mass. 1997) (explaining that Massachusetts does not follow federal abortion precedent under the Massachusetts due process | 3 | 2022–2022 |
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.