impossible standard (Iowa) · Go Syfert
← Iowa issues

impossible standard in Iowa

5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2018 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Irvin v. Dowdgreen
scotus · 1961 · cited in 3 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1988–2015
2 sentences

2015See Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 (1961) (“To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of . . . impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard.

2014See Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 (1961) (“To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard.

33
Isadore Blumenfield v. United States of America, (Two Cases). Monte Perkins v. United Statesgreen
ca8 · 1960 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978
1 sentence

1978It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.’ ” Later the Rizzo , court, 304 F.2d at 817 , set out the proper time to determine if the jury was fair and impartial by quoting from Blumenfield v. United States, 284 F.2d 46, 51 (8 Cir. 1960), where the court stated: “ ‘* * * The ultimate question is whether it is possible to select a fair and impartial jury, and the proper occasion for such a determination is upon the voir dire examination. * * *.’” For a more recent holding approving of the Irvin v. Dowd hold

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
In RE the Marriage of Kenneth R. Michael and Melissa J. Michael Upon the Petition of Kenneth R. Michael green
iowa · 2013
1 sentence

2018Randall complains this permanency standard can never be met because crop prices obviously fluctuate and “have never been, nor will ever be permanent.” As noted above, the proper standard is that “[a] substantial change justifying a modification must be permanent or continuous rather than temporary in nature.” Id.

12018–2018
Murphy v. Florida green
scotus · 1975
2 sentences

1978It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.’ ” Later the Rizzo , court, 304 F.2d at 817 , set out the proper time to determine if the jury was fair and impartial by quoting from Blumenfield v. United States, 284 F.2d 46, 51 (8 Cir. 1960), where the court stated: “ ‘* * * The ultimate question is whether it is possible to select a fair and impartial jury, and the proper occasion for such a determination is upon the voir dire examination. * * *.’” For a more recent holding approving of the Irvin v. Dowd hold

1978It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.’ ” Later the Rizzo , court, 304 F.2d at 817 , set out the proper time to determine if the jury was fair and impartial by quoting from Blumenfield v. United States, 284 F.2d 46, 51 (8 Cir. 1960), where the court stated: “ ‘* * * The ultimate question is whether it is possible to select a fair and impartial jury, and the proper occasion for such a determination is upon the voir dire examination. * * *.’” For a more recent holding approving of the Irvin v. Dowd hold

11978–1978
August Tom Rizzo v. United States of America, Ruby Nafie v. United States green
ca8 · 1962
1 sentence

1978It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.’ ” Later the Rizzo , court, 304 F.2d at 817 , set out the proper time to determine if the jury was fair and impartial by quoting from Blumenfield v. United States, 284 F.2d 46, 51 (8 Cir. 1960), where the court stated: “ ‘* * * The ultimate question is whether it is possible to select a fair and impartial jury, and the proper occasion for such a determination is upon the voir dire examination. * * *.’” For a more recent holding approving of the Irvin v. Dowd hold

11978–1978

Where else courts name it

AL 74 (1914–2014) CA 61 (1981–2026) IL 24 (1903–2025) PA 23 (1971–2025) TN 20 (1875–2021) IN 16 (1969–2020) GA 12 (1979–1991) TX 10 (1984–2019) LA 8 (1982–2022) OK 7 (1969–2023) MO 7 (1987–2024) AZ 7 (1968–2021) NY 6 (1960–2022) FL 6 (1977–2008) WI 5 (1964–2005) IA 5 (1978–2018) VA 4 (1998–2023) ID 4 (1973–2004) MI 4 (1997–2024) CO 4 (1983–2025) NH 3 (1974–2010) MD 3 (1981–2003) NC 3 (1890–1993) NJ 3 (1980–1988) MN 3 (2024–2024) WV 3 (1980–2000) WY 3 (1979–1989) MT 3 (1999–2013) ND 3 (1980–1989) NV 3 (1967–1994) KY 2 (2021–2022) HI 2 (1989–2020) OH 2 (2017–2020) NE 2 (1979–1981) VT 2 (2010–2013) CT 2 (1987–1989) WA 2 (2002–2002)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check