second element claim (Iowa) · Go Syfert
← Iowa issues

second element claim in Iowa

6 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2023 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. District Court of Iowa, in & for Linn Countygreen
iowa · 1974 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
1 sentence

1980Under the second element the privilege is limited to “all knowledge and information gained by the physician in the observation and personal examination of the patient in the discharge of his duties.” State v. District Court, 218 N.W.2d 641, 643 (Iowa 1974).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Stecklein v. City of Cascade green
iowa · 2005
1 sentence

2023Stecklein, 693 N.W.2d at 340 .

12023–2023
Bensley v. State green
iowa · 1991
2 sentences

2013We relied on the requirement of the second element of the clause that a claim be filed under any other law and concluded it “does not allow for an extension of the statute of limitations when the initial suit is filed under [the Act].” Id.

2013We relied on the requirement of the second element of the clause that a claim be filed under any other law and concluded it “does not allow for an extension of the statute of limitations when the initial suit is filed under [the Act].” Id.

12013–2013
Shaver v. Brock neutral
texapp · 1990
1 sentence

2004As the Texas Court of Appeals noted, "[W]e observe that both can1 and 'will' may be used to denote ability, and that in common usage, these words and their past tense forms, 'could' and 'would,' are sometimes used interchangeably.” Shaver v. Brock, 800 S.W.2d 657 , 659 n. 2 (Tex.Ct.App.1990) (citations omitted). 3 .For example, the second element of the instruction could state: At the time the defendant (describe act), the defendant expects to set in motion a force or chain of events which will cause or result in the death of (name of victim).

12004–2004
Boelman v. Manson State Bank green
iowa · 1994
1 sentence

2003Id. at 80-81 .

12003–2003
State v. Ray green
iowa · 1994
1 sentence

1995As to the second element of his claim, Spurgeon must prove *220 that his attorney’s “error worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage, creating a reasonable probability that but for the error the trial’s result would have been different.” Ray, 516 N.W.2d at 865 .

11995–1995

Where else courts name it

NC 65 (1995–2019) OH 55 (1983–2026) CA 38 (1957–2026) TX 33 (1961–2025) IL 21 (1989–2026) UT 13 (2000–2024) WI 12 (1980–2024) NM 11 (2004–2024) NY 11 (1976–2026) ID 11 (1966–2021) WY 9 (1992–2016) WA 9 (1992–2024) MI 8 (1972–2023) GA 7 (1993–2018) MA 7 (2000–2021) IA 6 (1980–2023) RI 6 (1980–2013) MO 6 (1992–2014) IN 6 (1982–2025) PA 6 (1982–2022) DE 5 (1975–2025) MD 5 (1994–2019) VA 5 (1989–2023) CT 4 (2002–2025) TN 4 (1954–2007) DC 4 (1981–2025) CO 3 (1983–2024) AL 3 (1980–2024) OR 3 (1985–2026) NJ 3 (2010–2021) AZ 3 (2006–2017) ME 2 (2005–2021) FL 2 (1984–2000) SD 2 (1986–2025) LA 2 (2006–2016) ND 2 (1982–2000) HI 2 (1995–1995)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check