5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Salinas v. Texasgreen2 sentences2020See id. at 189 , 133 S. Ct. at 2182–83 (“But popular misconceptions notwithstanding, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one may be ‘compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself’; it does not establish an unqualified ‘right to remain silent.’ A witness’ constitutional right to refuse to answer questions depends on his 52 reasons for doing so, and courts need to know those reasons to evaluate the merits of a Fifth Amendment claim.”). 2020See id. at 189 , 133 S. Ct. at 2182–83 (“But popular misconceptions notwithstanding, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one may be ‘compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself’; it does not establish an unqualified ‘right to remain silent.’ A witness’ constitutional right to refuse to answer questions depends on his 52 reasons for doing so, and courts need to know those reasons to evaluate the merits of a Fifth Amendment claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gravesgreen1 sentence2016See State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 876 (Iowa 2003) (discussing the right to have guilt determined based on evidence introduced); State v. Bishop, 387 N.W.2d 554 , 562–63 (Iowa 1986) (discussing the privilege against self- 9 incrimination); State v. Hill, No. 12-0860, 2013 WL 2370714 , at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. May 30, 2013) (Potterfield, J., dissenting) (discussing presumption of innocence and burden of proof). | 1 | 1 |
Schwartz v. Public Administratorgreen2 sentences1971The majority recognizes that one of the “most important factors in determining availability of the doctrine of collateral estoppel is * * * whether the party adversely affected * * * had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the relevant issue effectively * * In stating its position on collateral estop-pel the majority of the Court of Appeals of New York stated in Schwartz v. Public Administrator of Co. of Bronx, 24 N.Y.2d 65 , 298 N.Y.S.2d 955, 960 , 246 N.E.2d 725, 729 (1969): “ * * * New York Law has now reached the point where there are but .two necessary requirements for the invocation 1971The majority recognizes that one of the “most important factors in determining availability of the doctrine of collateral estoppel is * * * whether the party adversely affected * * * had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the relevant issue effectively * * In stating its position on collateral estop-pel the majority of the Court of Appeals of New York stated in Schwartz v. Public Administrator of Co. of Bronx, 24 N.Y.2d 65 , 298 N.Y.S.2d 955, 960 , 246 N.E.2d 725, 729 (1969): “ * * * New York Law has now reached the point where there are but .two necessary requirements for the invocation | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bishop
green
1 sentence2016See State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 876 (Iowa 2003) (discussing the right to have guilt determined based on evidence introduced); State v. Bishop, 387 N.W.2d 554 , 562–63 (Iowa 1986) (discussing the privilege against self- 9 incrimination); State v. Hill, No. 12-0860, 2013 WL 2370714 , at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. May 30, 2013) (Potterfield, J., dissenting) (discussing presumption of innocence and burden of proof). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Harrison v. United States
green
2 sentences2005However, the same principle that prohibits the use of illegally obtained incriminating statements “prohibits the use of any testimony impelled thereby — the fruit of the poisonous tree, to invoke a time-worn metaphor.” Id. .The invocation of that principle turns on whether the defendant took the stand “to overcome the impact of [incriminating statements] illegally obtained and hence improperly introduced.” Id. at 223 , 88 S.Ct.. at 2010, 20 L.Ed.2d at 1052. 2005However, the same principle that prohibits the use of illegally obtained incriminating statements “prohibits the use of any testimony impelled thereby — the fruit of the poisonous tree, to invoke a time-worn metaphor.” Id. .The invocation of that principle turns on whether the defendant took the stand “to overcome the impact of [incriminating statements] illegally obtained and hence improperly introduced.” Id. at 223 , 88 S.Ct.. at 2010, 20 L.Ed.2d at 1052. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United States v. Reynolds
green
2 sentences1985These hurdles had their genesis in United States *486 v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 , 73 S.Ct. 528 , 97 L.Ed. 727 (1953). 1985These hurdles had their genesis in United States *486 v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 , 73 S.Ct. 528 , 97 L.Ed. 727 (1953). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.