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 1900–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2017While addressing an elemental challenge to a drug-tax-stamp conviction in State v. White, 545 N.W.2d 552 (Iowa 1993), the court again refused to attach the “knowingly” requirement to the weight of the taxable substance. 2017See id. at 555 (describing the elements as “(1) the defendant is a dealer, (2) who unlawfully possesses, distributes or offers to sell, (3) a taxable substance, (4) without affixing a stamp, label, or other official indicia evidencing the tax imposed by chapter 453B has been paid”). 5 Based on our review of the statutory scheme and the relevant precedent from our supreme court, we conclude the knowledge requirement in the statute does not apply to the weight of the substance. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Perkinsgreen2 sentences1900See U. S. v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625 (16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073, 41 L. 1900See U. S. v. Perkins, 163 U. S. 625 (16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073, 41 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Howes v. Sutton
neutral
2 sentences1970In Howes v. Sutton, 221 Iowa 1326, 1330 , 268 N.W. 164, 166 , this court stated: “It is an elemental principle of law that as between trustee and cestui que trust, in the case of an express trust, the statute of limitations has no application, and no length of time is a bar. 1970In Howes v. Sutton, 221 Iowa 1326, 1330 , 268 N.W. 164, 166 , this court stated: “It is an elemental principle of law that as between trustee and cestui que trust, in the case of an express trust, the statute of limitations has no application, and no length of time is a bar. | 2 | 1955–1970 |
Hodges v. Bierlein
neutral
2 sentences1970Against an express and continuing trust time does not run until repudiation or adverse possession by the trustee and knowledge thereof on the part of the cestui.” (Emphasis supplied.) Also see Long v. Valleau, 87 Iowa 675 , 55 N.W. 31 , 56 N.W. 748 . 1970Against an express and continuing trust time does not run until repudiation or adverse possession by the trustee and knowledge thereof on the part of the cestui." (Emphasis supplied.) Also see Long v. Valleau, 87 Iowa 675 , 55 N.W. 31 , 56 N.W. 748 . | 2 | 1955–1970 |
Long v. Valleau
green
2 sentences1970Against an express and continuing trust time does not run until repudiation or adverse possession by the trustee and knowledge thereof on the part of the cestui.” (Emphasis supplied.) Also see Long v. Valleau, 87 Iowa 675 , 55 N.W. 31 , 56 N.W. 748 . 1970Against an express and continuing trust time does not run until repudiation or adverse possession by the trustee and knowledge thereof on the part of the cestui." (Emphasis supplied.) Also see Long v. Valleau, 87 Iowa 675 , 55 N.W. 31 , 56 N.W. 748 . | 2 | 1955–1970 |
Co-Operative Sales Co. v. Van Der Beek
neutral
2 sentences1936It is an elemental principle of law, laid down in Greenleaf, and discussed in Co *825 operative Sales Co. v. Van der Beek, 219 Iowa 974 , beginning on page 978, 259 N. W. 586, 588 , that the obligation of proving any fact lies upon the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue, quoting from the Boman law, “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit non qui negat.” This affirmative defense of the answer injected in this case by the defendant called upon him to give some proof of the assertion there made, and did not call on the plaintiff to negative the same until evidence had been intro 1936It is an elemental principle of law, laid down in Greenleaf, and discussed in Co *825 operative Sales Co. v. Van der Beek, 219 Iowa 974 , beginning on page 978, 259 N. W. 586, 588 , that the obligation of proving any fact lies upon the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue, quoting from the Boman law, “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit non qui negat.” This affirmative defense of the answer injected in this case by the defendant called upon him to give some proof of the assertion there made, and did not call on the plaintiff to negative the same until evidence had been intro | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.