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 2015–2023 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. Ellisgreen2 sentences2023In ruling on the motion for new trial, the court stated: As to the request to have a new trial based on the weight of the evidence, the court is using the weight of the evidence standard and specifically the Ellis standard, 578 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 1998). 2023In ruling on the motion for new trial, the court stated: As to the request to have a new trial based on the weight of the evidence, the court is using the weight of the evidence standard and specifically the Ellis standard, 578 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 1998). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Cooleygreen2 sentences2023See State v. Cooley, 587 N.W.2d 752, 754 (Iowa 1998). 2023See State v. Cooley, 587 N.W.2d 752, 754 (Iowa 1998). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rootgreen1 sentence2023In fact, more than a decade ago, we published Root to emphasize the need for courts to use “correct terminology” to resolve “any lingering ambiguity” and “instill confidence in the ruling.” 801 N.W.2d at 31 (“While we place great confidence in the district court’s experience in utilizing the differing standards, we have repeatedly remanded to make certain the proper standard was applied and reflected in its ruling.”). 22 So we recognize the benefit of a party bringing the use of the wrong standard to the court’s attention—permitting the court to correct the mistake on the spot rather than wait | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Kenneth Osborne Arygreen2 sentences2020So, as the court said in State v. Ary, a trial court should “grant a motion for a new trial only in exceptional circumstances.” 877 N.W.2d 686, 705 (Iowa 2016). 1 The State points out there is “some ambiguity in the district court’s explanation of its ruling between the correct Ellis standard and the incorrect sufficiency-of-the- evidence standard.” See Ellis, 578 N.W.2d at 658–59. 2020So, as the court said in State v. Ary, a trial court should “grant a motion for a new trial only in exceptional circumstances.” 877 N.W.2d 686, 705 (Iowa 2016). 1 The State points out there is “some ambiguity in the district court’s explanation of its ruling between the correct Ellis standard and the incorrect sufficiency-of-the- evidence standard.” See Ellis, 578 N.W.2d at 658–59. | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Jonas Dorian Neiderbachgreen2 sentences2016The court held: With regard to the Defendant’s Motion in Arrest of Judgment or Motion for New Trial, I do find that sufficient evidence was presented to the jury on each and every element as to all three counts such that a jury, if they believed the evidence, could legally find that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions as to all three offenses. 8 The State asserts Travis failed to preserve his claim that he was entitled to a new trial under the Ellis standard, citing State v. Thompson, 836 N.W.2d 470, 491 (Iowa 2013), and State v. Phillips, No. 13-1402, 2014 WL 5243363 , at 2016The court held: With regard to the Defendant’s Motion in Arrest of Judgment or Motion for New Trial, I do find that sufficient evidence was presented to the jury on each and every element as to all three counts such that a jury, if they believed the evidence, could legally find that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions as to all three offenses. 8 The State asserts Travis failed to preserve his claim that he was entitled to a new trial under the Ellis standard, citing State v. Thompson, 836 N.W.2d 470, 491 (Iowa 2013), and State v. Phillips, No. 13-1402, 2014 WL 5243363 , at | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.