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 2015–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Meier v. SENECAUT IIIgreen2 sentences2022See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.”). 2020“As a general rule, an issue not presented in the juvenile court may not be raised for the first time on appeal.” In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct. App.1994); accord Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). | 2 | 2 |
In Re MAFgreen1 sentence2021See In re M.A.F., 679 N.W.2d 683, 685 (Iowa Ct. App. 2004) (“Under our rules of civil procedure, an issue which is not raised before the juvenile court may not be raised for the first time on appeal.”). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of T.J.O.green1 sentence2020“As a general rule, an issue not presented in the juvenile court may not be raised for the first time on appeal.” In re T.J.O., 527 N.W.2d 417, 420 (Iowa Ct. App.1994); accord Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). | 1 | 1 |
In Re MTgreen1 sentence2019See In re M.T., 613 N.W.2d 690, 692 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000) (finding a parent failed to preserve error on an issue not brought before the juvenile court). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of S.V.G.green1 sentence2019See In re S.V.G., 496 N.W.2d 262, 264 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (holding “matters not raised in the trial court, including constitutional questions, cannot be effectively asserted for the first time on appeal”); see also In re L.J., No. 18-0910, 2018 WL 3472199 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. July 18, 2018) (finding parent “failed to preserve error on her due process claim, as her counsel’s request for a continuance did not allude to any potential constitutional violation in the event of a denial of the motion”).5 5 Even if we bypassed error preservation, we would not likely find a violation of her rights. | 1 | 1 |
In Re CHgreen1 sentence2015See In re C.H., 652 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.