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 2005–2025 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. Countrymangreen2 sentences2025See Countryman, 572 N.W.2d at 558 (“The three-hour length of the conversation did not render it custodial.”); Brown, 341 N.W.2d at 16 (finding no custody despite two and one-half hours of questioning). 2025See Countryman, 572 N.W.2d at 558 (“The three-hour length of the conversation did not render it custodial.”); Brown, 341 N.W.2d at 16 (finding no custody despite two and one-half hours of questioning). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2025See Countryman, 572 N.W.2d at 558 (“The three-hour length of the conversation did not render it custodial.”); Brown, 341 N.W.2d at 16 (finding no custody despite two and one-half hours of questioning). 2025See Countryman, 572 N.W.2d at 558 (“The three-hour length of the conversation did not render it custodial.”); Brown, 341 N.W.2d at 16 (finding no custody despite two and one-half hours of questioning). | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Keegan Craig Smithgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Smith, 926 N.W.2d 760 , 761–63 (Iowa 2019) (“[T]he statute creates a right for a detainee or arrestee to have an ‘independent chemical test or tests administered at the person’s own expense in addition’ to any test administered at the direction of an officer.” (citations omitted)). 2020See State v. Smith, 926 N.W.2d 760 , 761–63 (Iowa 2019) (“[T]he statute creates a right for a detainee or arrestee to have an ‘independent chemical test or tests administered at the person’s own expense in addition’ to any test administered at the direction of an officer.” (citations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Hillary Lee Tylergreen2 sentences2019See Tyler, 867 N.W.2d at 166 n.14. 2019See Tyler, 867 N.W.2d at 166 n.14. | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Karen Sue Hustongreen1 sentence2017See State v. Huston, 825 N.W.2d 531, 536 (Iowa 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Linge v. Iowa State Highway Commissiongreen2 sentences2017Generally, we will not find admission of evidence is prejudicial “where substantially the same evidence is in the record without objection.” See Linge v. Iowa State Highway Comm’n, 150 N.W.2d 642, 648 (Iowa 1967). 10 offering a mere confirmation that Hunt had consumed some amount of ethyl alcohol on the night in question.3 Accordingly, whether Trooper Clark used approved methods for conducting the DataMaster test does not determine the need for further foundation under the statute. 2017Generally, we will not find admission of evidence is prejudicial “where substantially the same evidence is in the record without objection.” See Linge v. Iowa State Highway Comm’n, 150 N.W.2d 642, 648 (Iowa 1967). 10 offering a mere confirmation that Hunt had consumed some amount of ethyl alcohol on the night in question.3 Accordingly, whether Trooper Clark used approved methods for conducting the DataMaster test does not determine the need for further foundation under the statute. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2005Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it, “Mppeals to the jury’s sympathies, arouses its sense of horror, provokes its instinct to punish, or triggers other mainsprings of human action that may cause the jury to base its decision on something other than' the established propositions in the case.” State v. White, 668 N.W.2d 850, 854 (Iowa 2003) (quoting 2 Joseph M. 2005Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if it, “Mppeals to the jury’s sympathies, arouses its sense of horror, provokes its instinct to punish, or triggers other mainsprings of human action that may cause the jury to base its decision on something other than' the established propositions in the case.” State v. White, 668 N.W.2d 850, 854 (Iowa 2003) (quoting 2 Joseph M. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.