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.
5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Porter v. Good Eavespoutinggreen2 sentences2026Porter v. Good Eavespouting, 505 N.W.2d 178, 181 (Iowa 1993). “[W]hen the relation back rule is applied to amendments that add a defendant, we strictly adhere to the clear language of the rule and have refused to extend the notice period beyond the time for commencing the action.” Est. of Kuhns v. Marco, 620 N.W.2d 488, 492 (Iowa 2000). 7 For Henry’s amended pleading to relate back to her original filing, she must show that the State had notice that it was the proper party to the suit before the statute of limitations period expired. 2000See Porter, 505 N.W.2d at 181-82 ; Grant v. Cedar Falls Oil Co., 480 N.W.2d 863, 865-66 (Iowa 1992). | 2 | 2 |
Estate of Kuhns v. Marcogreen2 sentences2026Porter v. Good Eavespouting, 505 N.W.2d 178, 181 (Iowa 1993). “[W]hen the relation back rule is applied to amendments that add a defendant, we strictly adhere to the clear language of the rule and have refused to extend the notice period beyond the time for commencing the action.” Est. of Kuhns v. Marco, 620 N.W.2d 488, 492 (Iowa 2000). 7 For Henry’s amended pleading to relate back to her original filing, she must show that the State had notice that it was the proper party to the suit before the statute of limitations period expired. 2015Our supreme court has held “when the relation back rule is applied to amendments that add a defendant, we strictly adhere to the clear language of the rule and have refused to extend the notice period beyond the time for commencing the action.” Estate of Kuhns, 620 N.W.2d at 492 . | 1 | 2 |
Grant v. Cedar Falls Oil Co.green2 sentences2000See Porter, 505 N.W.2d at 181-82 ; Grant v. Cedar Falls Oil Co., 480 N.W.2d 863, 865-66 (Iowa 1992). 2000Butler v. Woodbury County, 547 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Iowa App.1996); see Grant, 480 N.W.2d at 865-66 . | 1 | 1 |
Butler v. Woodbury Countygreen1 sentence2000Butler v. Woodbury County, 547 N.W.2d 17, 20 (Iowa App.1996); see Grant, 480 N.W.2d at 865-66 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Van Beek
green
2 sentences1996Therefore, we overrule State v. Van Beek, 443 N.W.2d 704 (Iowa 1989), which held that rule 27(2)(a) is inapplicable in situations in which a defendant, who although arrested and briefly detained, is unconditionally released without formal charges being filed against the defendant in district court. 1994Therefore, we overrule State v. Van Beek, 443 N.W.2d 704 (Iowa 1989), which held that rule 27(2)(a) is inapplicable in situations in which a defendant, who although arrested and briefly detained, is unconditionally released without formal charges being Bled against the defendant in district court. | 2 | 1994–1996 |
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.