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 1984–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Atwood v. Vilsackgreen1 sentence2016The State’s points are well-taken, but we can reject the mother’s argument based on the language of article I, section 10—specifically its reference to “the accused.” Our supreme court has held article I, section 10 “only applies to criminal proceedings.” Atwood v. Vilsack, 725 N.W.2d 641 , 650–51 (Iowa 2006) (“It protects only the rights of an ‘accused,’ not the rights of an individual facing potential civil commitment pursuant to Iowa’s SVP statute.”). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Brooks v. Zakaibgreen2 sentences2011Zakaib involved a West Virginia statute that expressly recognized waivers: “[A]n individual may execute a valid waiver authorizing the release of the contents of his file pertaining to his own acts or omissions, and such waiver shall remove the confidentiality and privilege of said contents otherwise provided by this section.” See Zakaib, 588 S.E.2d at 426-27 (2003) (quoting W. 2011Zakaib involved a West Virginia statute that expressly recognized waivers: “[A]n individual may execute a valid waiver authorizing the release of the contents of his file pertaining to his own acts or omissions, and such waiver shall remove the confidentiality and privilege of said contents otherwise provided by this section.” See Zakaib, 588 S.E.2d at 426–27 (2003) (quoting W. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Meredithgreen2 sentences1999Meredith, 175 Cal.Rptr. 612 , 631 P.2d at 51-52, 54 ; see McCormick § 89, at 328; see also Hazard § 1.6:303, at 169 (Supp.1993) (there is no situation that calls for stronger application of the confidentiality principle and no exception even arguably applies). 1999Meredith, 175 Cal.Rptr. 612 , 631 P.2d at 51-52, 54 ; see McCormick § 89, at 328; see also Hazard § 1.6:303, at 169 (Supp.1993) (there is no situation that calls for stronger application of the confidentiality principle and no exception even arguably applies). | 1 | 1 |
City of Dubuque v. Telegraph Herald, Inc.green1 sentence1992In City of Dubuque v. Telegraph Herald, Inc., 297 N.W.2d 523, 526-27 (Iowa 1980), we said the legislature intended for the disclosure requirement to be interpreted broadly, and for the confidentiality exception to be interpreted narrowly. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Colegreen1 sentence1984State v. Cole, 295 N.W.2d 29, 33-35 (Iowa 1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Sioux City v. Greater Sioux City Press Club
green
1 sentence1992In Press Club, 421 N.W.2d at 897 , we explained that the so-called “narrow” construction of statutory exceptions from disclosure, outlined in Telegraph Herald, should not be overutilized. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.