5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Schwitzergreen1 sentence2022James appeals. “[T]he district court when sitting in probate is a court of general jurisdiction and the same prohibition against collateral attack applies to judgments in probate as to those in law and equity.” Anderson v. Schwitzer, 20 N.W.2d 67, 71 (Iowa 1945). | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Sean Neal Delacygreen1 sentence2018See State v. Delacy, 907 N.W.2d 154, 159 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017) (“[F]ailure to prove either element is fatal to the claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
Meier v. SENECAUT IIIgreen1 sentence2017See Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 537 . | 1 | 1 |
Tim Neal v. Annett Holdings, Inc.green1 sentence2015Because Bell’s challenge to the commissioner’s industrial disability determination depends on the application of law to facts, we will not disturb the ruling unless it is “irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.” See Neal v. Annett Holdings, Inc., 814 N.W.2d 512, 526 (Iowa 2012). 5 III. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bell v. Wolfish
green
2 sentences1985As to the second prong of the Bell test, the need for the search, the Supreme Court said: [W]e have held that even when an institutional restriction infringes a specific constitutional guarantee, such as the First Amendment, the practice must be evaluated in the light of the central objective of prison administration, safeguarding institutional security. 441 U.S. at 547 , 99 S.Ct. at 1878 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 473 . 1985As to the second prong of the Bell test, the need for the search, the Supreme Court said: [W]e have held that even when an institutional restriction infringes a specific constitutional guarantee, such as the First Amendment, the practice must be evaluated in the light of the central objective of prison administration, safeguarding institutional security. 441 U.S. at 547 , 99 S.Ct. at 1878 , 60 L.Ed.2d at 473 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.