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 1984–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Montgomery v. BREMER CTY. BD. OF SUP'RSgreen2 sentences2019Bd. of Supervisors, 299 N.W.2d 687, 693-94 (Iowa 1980) (concluding due process for public hearing did not require a formal evidentiary hearing). 2016Montgomery, 299 N.W.2d at 693 . | 1 | 3 |
Allegre v. Iowa State Board of Regentsgreen2 sentences1988See Allegre, 349 N.W.2d at 116 ; Security Savs. 1988See Allegre, 349 N.W.2d at 116 ; Security Savs. | 1 | 1 |
Allegre v. Iowa State Board of Regentsgreen1 sentence1984We said in Allegre I that “[ajlthough not specifically mentioned, the right to decide if retiring employees are entitled to the benefits of section 79.23 is granted under that part of section 262.9 which authorizes the Board to ‘perform all other acts necessary and proper for the execution of the powers and duties conferred upon it.’ Section 262.-9(11).” Allegre, 319 N.W.2d at 208 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.