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 1899–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gerst v. Marshallgreen2 sentences2009Id. at 817 . 2009Id. at 817. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hillman
neutral
1 sentence1936That such evidence is not a defense seems to b'e the holding in State v. Schumacher, 195 *144 Iowa 276, 191 N. W. 870 ; State v. Hilman, 203 Iowa 1008 , 213 N. W. 603 ; State v. Johnson, 211 Iowa 874 , 234 N. W. 263 . | 1 | 1936–1936 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1936That such evidence is not a defense seems to b'e the holding in State v. Schumacher, 195 *144 Iowa 276, 191 N. W. 870 ; State v. Hilman, 203 Iowa 1008 , 213 N. W. 603 ; State v. Johnson, 211 Iowa 874 , 234 N. W. 263 . 1936That such evidence is not a defense seems to b'e the holding in State v. Schumacher, 195 *144 Iowa 276, 191 N. W. 870 ; State v. Hilman, 203 Iowa 1008 , 213 N. W. 603 ; State v. Johnson, 211 Iowa 874 , 234 N. W. 263 . | 1 | 1936–1936 |
State v. Red
green
1 sentence1916State v. Red, 53 Iowa 69, at 71 , is not authority for the claim that we must determine whether the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that, although there be a preponderance, there may still be a reasonable doubt upon which the jury may acquit. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
State v. Cohen
neutral
1 sentence1916State v. Cohen, 108 Iowa 208, at 213 , is a criticism of an instruction which defines a reasonable doubt as one that the jury are able to give a reason for. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Mileham v. Montagne
green
1 sentence1913In support of the conclusion hereinbefore reached, and as bearing upon the criticism of this instruction made in the Webber case, we cite Mileham v. Montagne, found in 148 Iowa, 476 ; and the law seems to be well settled that the jury, in determining the ultimate question submitted in a case like this, have the right to consider any evidence showing that the will was just or unjust, reasonable or unreasonable, natural or unnatural, the natural objects of testator’s bounty, the financial condition of the different members of his family at the time of the execution of the will, the extent of the | 1 | 1913–1913 |
People v. Hamilton
neutral
1 sentence1899In People v. Hamilton, supra, in considering the weight of evidence to establish insanity, and in passing upon' an instruction in which, the words “clearly established.” were- used, it is said: “Ini the connection in which they are used, to- say that insanity' must be clearly established, is not to say that the evidence must more than preponderate, but only that the preponderance must be plainly apparent.” In State v. Felter, 32 Iowa, 49 , it is said that the fact of sanity cannot he avoided, it being in the nature of an affirmative defense, “except by a pro-' ponderance of proof, or (which is | 1 | 1899–1899 |
State v. Felter
green
1 sentence1899In People v. Hamilton, supra, in considering the weight of evidence to establish insanity, and in passing upon' an instruction in which, the words “clearly established.” were- used, it is said: “Ini the connection in which they are used, to- say that insanity' must be clearly established, is not to say that the evidence must more than preponderate, but only that the preponderance must be plainly apparent.” In State v. Felter, 32 Iowa, 49 , it is said that the fact of sanity cannot he avoided, it being in the nature of an affirmative defense, “except by a pro-' ponderance of proof, or (which is | 1 | 1899–1899 |
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.