5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Canterburygreen2 sentences2007See Taylor v. Canterbury, 92 P.3d 961, 966 (Colo.2004) (“Thus, in determining whether a joint tenancy has been created or severed, we look not to the four unities, but rather to the intent of the parties.”); Nicholas v. Nicholas, 277 Kan. 171 , 83 P.3d 214, 225 (2004) (recognizing “the modern trend of looking to the parties’ intent as the operative test of whether a joint tenancy has been severed rather than depending upon the traditional doctrine of the four unities”); In re Estate of Knickerbocker, 912 P.2d 969, 975 (Utah 1996) (“There is substantial support for the concept that it is the in 2007See Taylor v. Canterbury, 92 P.3d 961, 966 (Colo. 2004) (“Thus, in determining whether a joint tenancy has been created or severed, we look not to the four unities, but rather to the intent of the parties.”); Nicholas v. Nicholas, 83 P.3d 214, 225 (Kan. 2004) (recognizing “the modern trend of looking to the parties’ intent as the operative test of whether a joint tenancy has been severed rather than depending upon the traditional doctrine of the four unities”); In re Estate of Knickerbocker, 912 P.2d 969, 975 (Utah 1996) (“There is substantial support for the concept that it is the intent of t | 2 | 2 |
Nicholas v. Nicholasgreen2 sentences2007See Taylor v. Canterbury, 92 P.3d 961, 966 (Colo.2004) (“Thus, in determining whether a joint tenancy has been created or severed, we look not to the four unities, but rather to the intent of the parties.”); Nicholas v. Nicholas, 277 Kan. 171 , 83 P.3d 214, 225 (2004) (recognizing “the modern trend of looking to the parties’ intent as the operative test of whether a joint tenancy has been severed rather than depending upon the traditional doctrine of the four unities”); In re Estate of Knickerbocker, 912 P.2d 969, 975 (Utah 1996) (“There is substantial support for the concept that it is the in 2007See Taylor v. Canterbury, 92 P.3d 961, 966 (Colo. 2004) (“Thus, in determining whether a joint tenancy has been created or severed, we look not to the four unities, but rather to the intent of the parties.”); Nicholas v. Nicholas, 83 P.3d 214, 225 (Kan. 2004) (recognizing “the modern trend of looking to the parties’ intent as the operative test of whether a joint tenancy has been severed rather than depending upon the traditional doctrine of the four unities”); In re Estate of Knickerbocker, 912 P.2d 969, 975 (Utah 1996) (“There is substantial support for the concept that it is the intent of t | 2 | 2 |
Knickerbocker v. Cannongreen2 sentences2007See Taylor v. Canterbury, 92 P.3d 961, 966 (Colo.2004) (“Thus, in determining whether a joint tenancy has been created or severed, we look not to the four unities, but rather to the intent of the parties.”); Nicholas v. Nicholas, 277 Kan. 171 , 83 P.3d 214, 225 (2004) (recognizing “the modern trend of looking to the parties’ intent as the operative test of whether a joint tenancy has been severed rather than depending upon the traditional doctrine of the four unities”); In re Estate of Knickerbocker, 912 P.2d 969, 975 (Utah 1996) (“There is substantial support for the concept that it is the in 2007See Taylor v. Canterbury, 92 P.3d 961, 966 (Colo. 2004) (“Thus, in determining whether a joint tenancy has been created or severed, we look not to the four unities, but rather to the intent of the parties.”); Nicholas v. Nicholas, 83 P.3d 214, 225 (Kan. 2004) (recognizing “the modern trend of looking to the parties’ intent as the operative test of whether a joint tenancy has been severed rather than depending upon the traditional doctrine of the four unities”); In re Estate of Knickerbocker, 912 P.2d 969, 975 (Utah 1996) (“There is substantial support for the concept that it is the intent of t | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Estate of Johnson
green
2 sentences2022Id. 9 In abandoning the four-unities test in favor of an “intent-based approach,”5 the court in Johnson recognized “this approach does not simply permit a court to determine the intent of a party under the facts and then fulfill it.” 739 N.W.2d at 498 . 2022Id. 9 In abandoning the four-unities test in favor of an “intent-based approach,”5 the court in Johnson recognized “this approach does not simply permit a court to determine the intent of a party under the facts and then fulfill it.” 739 N.W.2d at 498 . | 3 | 2022–2023 |
In Re Baker's Estate
green
2 sentences2007Rev. 1194 , 1196 (1957) (criticizing the result in Baker’s Estate, 247 Iowa at 1380 , 78 N.W.2d at 863 , under a four unities analysis). 2007Rev. 1194 , 1196 (1957) (criticizing the result in Baker’s Estate, 247 Iowa at 1380 , 78 N.W.2d at 863 , under a four unities analysis). | 2 | 2007–2007 |
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.