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 2009–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Virginiagreen2 sentences2009In applying an intermediate standard to review gender-based classifications, the Supreme Court has stated: “Focusing on the differential treatment or denial of opportunity for which relief is sought, the reviewing court must determine whether the proffered justification is ‘exceedingly persuasive.’ ” Virginia, 518 U.S. at 532–33, 116 S. Ct. at 2275, 135 L. 2009In applying an intermediate standard to review gender-based classifications, the Supreme Court has stated: “Focusing on the differential treatment or denial of opportunity for which relief is sought, the reviewing court must determine whether the proffered justification is ‘exceedingly persuasive.’ ” Virginia, 518 U.S. at 532–33, 116 S. Ct. at 2275, 135 L. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hyattgreen1 sentence2018“A discretionary sentencing ruling . . . may be [an abuse of discretion] if a sentencing court fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but nevertheless commits a clear error of judgment by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the limited range of choice dictated by the facts of the case.” Id. at 138 (second alteration in original) (quoting People v. Hyatt, 891 N.W.2d 549, 576 (Mich. 2016)). | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Christopher Ryan Lee Robygreen1 sentence2018“We review for an ‘abuse of discretion,’ our most deferential standard, ‘if the sentence is within the statutory limits.’ We review for ‘correction of errors at law,’ an intermediate standard, ‘when the 4 defendant challenges the legality of a sentence on nonconstitutional grounds.’” State v. Roby, 897 N.W.2d 127, 137 (Iowa 2017) (quoting State v. Seats, 865 N.W.2d 545 , 552–53 (Iowa 2015)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Caseyred2 sentences2023At the time of the Board of Medicine’s concession in PPH 2015, the federal constitutional right was governed by an intermediate standard of review unique to abortion cases: the undue burden test, set forth in Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey. 505 U.S. 833 , 878–79 (1992) (plurality opinion), overruled by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022). 2023Under this standard, an abortion law was deemed unconstitutional when the law had “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” PPH 2015, 865 N.W.2d at 263 (quoting Casey, 505 U.S. at 877 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State of Iowa v. Damion John Seats
green
2 sentences2018“We review for an ‘abuse of discretion,’ our most deferential standard, ‘if the sentence is within the statutory limits.’ We review for ‘correction of errors at law,’ an intermediate standard, ‘when the 4 defendant challenges the legality of a sentence on nonconstitutional grounds.’” State v. Roby, 897 N.W.2d 127, 137 (Iowa 2017) (quoting State v. Seats, 865 N.W.2d 545 , 552–53 (Iowa 2015)). 2017We review for “correction of errors at 11 law,” an intermediate standard, “when the defendant challenges the legality of a sentence on nonconstitutional grounds.” Id. at 553 . | 3 | 2017–2018 |
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
green
1 sentence2023At the time of the Board of Medicine’s concession in PPH 2015, the federal constitutional right was governed by an intermediate standard of review unique to abortion cases: the undue burden test, set forth in Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. Casey. 505 U.S. 833 , 878–79 (1992) (plurality opinion), overruled by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. and Jill Meadows v. Iowa Board of Medicine
green
1 sentence2023Under this standard, an abortion law was deemed unconstitutional when the law had “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” PPH 2015, 865 N.W.2d at 263 (quoting Casey, 505 U.S. at 877 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.