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 1912–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
State of Iowa v. Brent Michael Romergreen2 sentences2022There, the court pointed out that the defendant’s only argument under the prejudice step of the joinder analysis “pertain[ed] to our evidentiary rule on propensity.” Romer, 832 N.W.2d at 183 . 2022See Romer, 832 N.W.2d at 183 (“The evidence is clearly relevant and legally intertwined.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coxgreen1 sentence2022Citing Lam, the court stated, “we have previously found that an attempt to equate our evidentiary rule’s principles with [joinder] principles is inapposite.” Id; cf. State v. Cox, 781 N.W.2d 757, 759 (Iowa 2010) (holding unconstitutional Iowa Code section 701.11 (2007) authorizing the admission of “another sexual abuse” in a criminal prosecution for sexual abuse); 5 see also Thoren, ___ N.W.2d at ___, 2022 WL 569141 , at *7 (summarizing the holding of Cox). | 1 | 1 |
Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc.green2 sentences1981See Diaz v. Eli Lilly and Co., 364 Mass. 153, 162-63 , 302 N.E.2d 555, 560-61 (1973); Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc., 38 Wis.2d 571, 580-82 , 157 N.W.2d 595, 599-600 (1968). 1981See Diaz v. Eli Lilly and Co., 364 Mass. 153, 162-63 , 302 N.E.2d 555, 560-61 (1973); Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc., 38 Wis.2d 571, 580-82 , 157 N.W.2d 595, 599-600 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co.green2 sentences1981See Diaz v. Eli Lilly and Co., 364 Mass. 153, 162-63 , 302 N.E.2d 555, 560-61 (1973); Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc., 38 Wis.2d 571, 580-82 , 157 N.W.2d 595, 599-600 (1968). 1981See Diaz v. Eli Lilly and Co., 364 Mass. 153, 162-63 , 302 N.E.2d 555, 560-61 (1973); Fitzgerald v. Meissner & Hicks, Inc., 38 Wis.2d 571, 580-82 , 157 N.W.2d 595, 599-600 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Christy v. Miulli
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 705-06 . 2016Id. at 705–06. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Lam
green
1 sentence2022The joinder of offenses rule deals with the more basic question of what crimes can be charged and tried in a single proceeding.” Lam, 391 N.W.2d at 250 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Beeck v. S.R. Smith Co.
green
1 sentence2005The joinder rule is simply designed “to reduce a multiplicity *706 of suits and the possibility of double recovery.” S.R Smith, 359 N.W.2d at 487 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Williams v. Cleaveland
green
1 sentence1912Williams v. Cleaveland, 76 Conn. 426 ( 56 Atl. 851 .) And, though, he might prosecute a writ of error by his next friend, yet if he did so in his own name, and there was a joinder in error, his disability was waived. | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.