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 1 courts 1968–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
MC Holdings, L.L.C. Vs. Davis County Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences2014Id. at 330 (emphasis added). 2014Id. at 330 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Jaworski v. Kiernangreen1 sentence1999Id. at 338. | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Bonargreen1 sentence1990See Miller v. Bonar, 337 N.W.2d 523, 530 (Iowa 1983) (“Parties may not remain silent and allow the court to commit an inadvertent error only to raise it later on appeal”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ciampa v. Bank of America
green
1 sentence2023Cf. Ciampa v. Bank of Am., 35 N.E.3d 765 , 768–69 (Mass. App. Ct. 2015) (discussing reformation claim where the IRA beneficiary form named “a person who does not exist”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Viereck v. United States
green
2 sentences1968Most appropriate at this point is a statement set forth in Viereck v. United States, 318 U.S. 236, 248 , 63 S.Ct. 561, 566 , 87 L.Ed. 734 , 741: “‘The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. 1968Most appropriate at this point is a statement set forth in Viereck v. United States, 318 U.S. 236, 248 , 63 S.Ct. 561, 566 , 87 L.Ed. 734 , 741: “‘The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.