5 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2021 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 v. Schmitzgreen2 sentences2013However, we have typically used the Blockburger elements test in cases in which “two offenses charged under separate statutory provisions constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.” State v. Schmitz, 610 N.W.2d 514 , 515–16 (Iowa 2000); see, e.g., Burgess, 639 N.W.2d at 568–70 (analyzing whether theft by deception and theft by misappropriation are the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy). 2013However, we have typically used the Blockburger elements test in cases in which “two offenses charged under separate statutory provisions constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.” State v. Schmitz, 610 N.W.2d 514, 515-16 (Iowa 2000); see, e.g., Burgess, 639 N.W.2d at 568-70 (analyzing whether theft by deception and theft by misappropriation are the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy). | 2 | 2 |
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2013State v. Schmitz, 610 N.W.2d 514, 516 (2000) (analyzing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)). 2013State v. Schmitz, 610 N.W.2d 514, 516 (2000) (analyzing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Andersongreen1 sentence2021See id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burgessgreen2 sentences2013However, we have typically used the Blockburger elements test in cases in which “two offenses charged under separate statutory provisions constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.” State v. Schmitz, 610 N.W.2d 514 , 515–16 (Iowa 2000); see, e.g., Burgess, 639 N.W.2d at 568–70 (analyzing whether theft by deception and theft by misappropriation are the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy). 2013However, we have typically used the Blockburger elements test in cases in which “two offenses charged under separate statutory provisions constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.” State v. Schmitz, 610 N.W.2d 514, 515-16 (Iowa 2000); see, e.g., Burgess, 639 N.W.2d at 568-70 (analyzing whether theft by deception and theft by misappropriation are the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy). | 1 | 1 |
Missouri v. Huntergreen2 sentences1994Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368-69 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 544 (1983); State v. Gallup, 500 N.W.2d 437, 443 (Iowa 1993). 1994Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368-69 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 544 (1983); State v. Gallup, 500 N.W.2d 437, 443 (Iowa 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gallupgreen1 sentence1994Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368-69 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 544 (1983); State v. Gallup, 500 N.W.2d 437, 443 (Iowa 1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Albernaz v. United States
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 339 , 101 S.Ct. at 1142 . 2019Id. at 339 , 101 S.Ct. at 1142 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.