5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1862–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hayes v. Kernsgreen2 sentences2017Therefore, we do not consider other assignments of error raised by plaintiff bearing on the main case.”); Hayes v. Kerns, 387 N.W.2d 302, 308 (Iowa 1986) (holding appellate court only had jurisdiction to address an issue raised in a supplemental order, not all the issues in the original judgment); In re Fenchel, 268 N.W.2d 207, 209 (Iowa 1978) (holding a party appealing from a supplemental decree deciding an issue reserved in the original decree may challenge only the supplemental decree’s provisions). 1991Cf Hayes v. Kerns, 387 N.W.2d 302 (Iowa 1986) (unappealed judgment was a final adjudication of all issues raised by appeal except that appeal from supplemental order regarding interest conferred jurisdiction for the appellate court to address only that issue); In re Fenchel, 268 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa 1978) (a party appealing from a supplemental decree deciding an issue reserved in the original decree may challenge only the supplemental decree’s provisions). | 1 | 2 |
Petition of Fenchelgreen2 sentences2017Therefore, we do not consider other assignments of error raised by plaintiff bearing on the main case.”); Hayes v. Kerns, 387 N.W.2d 302, 308 (Iowa 1986) (holding appellate court only had jurisdiction to address an issue raised in a supplemental order, not all the issues in the original judgment); In re Fenchel, 268 N.W.2d 207, 209 (Iowa 1978) (holding a party appealing from a supplemental decree deciding an issue reserved in the original decree may challenge only the supplemental decree’s provisions). 1991Cf Hayes v. Kerns, 387 N.W.2d 302 (Iowa 1986) (unappealed judgment was a final adjudication of all issues raised by appeal except that appeal from supplemental order regarding interest conferred jurisdiction for the appellate court to address only that issue); In re Fenchel, 268 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa 1978) (a party appealing from a supplemental decree deciding an issue reserved in the original decree may challenge only the supplemental decree’s provisions). | 1 | 2 |
Mauer v. Rohdegreen1 sentence1977See Mauer v. Rohde, et al., 257 N.W.2d 489 (Iowa 1977), filed today; National Farmers Union Property & Cas. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sorenson v. Sorenson
green
2 sentences2021Sorenson, 254 Iowa at 824–25, 119 N.W.2d at 133–34 (“Defendant cannot bring himself within the provisions of rules [1.1012] and [1.1013] because he did not act within the one-year limit therein provided . . . .”). 2021Sorenson, 254 Iowa at 824–25, 119 N.W.2d at 133–34 (“Defendant cannot bring himself within the provisions of rules [1.1012] and [1.1013] because he did not act within the one-year limit therein provided . . . .”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Rose v. Himely
green
1 sentence1862It is a suit in rem, and not in personam,.- Smiths v. Dubuque County, 1 Iowa, 492 ; Little v. Fitts, 33 Ala., 343 ; Rose v. Himily, 4 Cranch, 241 ; Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhuy, 12 How., 449 ; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How., 441 ; Fritz v. Ball, 12 Id., 446 , Judiciary Act 1789, § 9, Curtis Com., §§ 131, 124; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat, 304; Fox v. Revenue Cutter, 8 Law Reg., 459; Eastbrook v. Goddard, 1 Newb., 297. | 1 | 1862–1862 |
Waring v. Clarke
green
2 sentences1862It is a suit in rem, and not in personam,.- Smiths v. Dubuque County, 1 Iowa, 492 ; Little v. Fitts, 33 Ala., 343 ; Rose v. Himily, 4 Cranch, 241 ; Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhuy, 12 How., 449 ; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How., 441 ; Fritz v. Ball, 12 Id., 446 , Judiciary Act 1789, § 9, Curtis Com., §§ 131, 124; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat, 304; Fox v. Revenue Cutter, 8 Law Reg., 459; Eastbrook v. Goddard, 1 Newb., 297. 1862It is a suit in rem, and not in personam,.- Smiths v. Dubuque County, 1 Iowa, 492 ; Little v. Fitts, 33 Ala., 343 ; Rose v. Himily, 4 Cranch, 241 ; Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhuy, 12 How., 449 ; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How., 441 ; Fritz v. Ball, 12 Id., 446 , Judiciary Act 1789, § 9, Curtis Com., §§ 131, 124; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat, 304; Fox v. Revenue Cutter, 8 Law Reg., 459; Eastbrook v. Goddard, 1 Newb., 297. | 1 | 1862–1862 |
Little v. Fitts
neutral
1 sentence1862It is a suit in rem, and not in personam,.- Smiths v. Dubuque County, 1 Iowa, 492 ; Little v. Fitts, 33 Ala., 343 ; Rose v. Himily, 4 Cranch, 241 ; Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhuy, 12 How., 449 ; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How., 441 ; Fritz v. Ball, 12 Id., 446 , Judiciary Act 1789, § 9, Curtis Com., §§ 131, 124; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat, 304; Fox v. Revenue Cutter, 8 Law Reg., 459; Eastbrook v. Goddard, 1 Newb., 297. | 1 | 1862–1862 |
Smiths v. Dubuque County
neutral
1 sentence1862It is a suit in rem, and not in personam,.- Smiths v. Dubuque County, 1 Iowa, 492 ; Little v. Fitts, 33 Ala., 343 ; Rose v. Himily, 4 Cranch, 241 ; Propeller Genesee Chief v. Fitzhuy, 12 How., 449 ; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How., 441 ; Fritz v. Ball, 12 Id., 446 , Judiciary Act 1789, § 9, Curtis Com., §§ 131, 124; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat, 304; Fox v. Revenue Cutter, 8 Law Reg., 459; Eastbrook v. Goddard, 1 Newb., 297. | 1 | 1862–1862 |
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.