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 1948–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. McCrightgreen1 sentence2022In any event, Long’s claim is not properly before us, as it was neither raised before nor addressed by the PCR court.1 See State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (noting issues not raised before the district court may not be raised for the first time on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Peter Kelly Longgreen1 sentence2017Long, 814 N.W.2d at 579 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Lickleider v. Iowa State Traveling Men's Ass'ngreen1 sentence1948See, however, Lickleider v. Iowa State *1210 Traveling Men’s Assn., 184 Iowa 423 , 166 N. W. 363 , 168 N. W. 884 , 3 A. R. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dible v. State
green
1 sentence2020In an order granting the motion to dismiss the second PCR application, the district court acknowledged and rejected Long’s claim that Judge Wilke should have recused 4 himself, describing that claim as already having “been raised and rejected.” In finding Long’s claims barred by the three-year limitation period set forth in Iowa Code section 822.3, the court cited the rule of Dible v. State, which held that ineffectiveness of appellate or postconviction counsel is not a “ground of fact” within the meaning of section 822.3’s exception to the three-year limitations period for PCR applications. 5 | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Harrington v. State
green
1 sentence2020In an order granting the motion to dismiss the second PCR application, the district court acknowledged and rejected Long’s claim that Judge Wilke should have recused 4 himself, describing that claim as already having “been raised and rejected.” In finding Long’s claims barred by the three-year limitation period set forth in Iowa Code section 822.3, the court cited the rule of Dible v. State, which held that ineffectiveness of appellate or postconviction counsel is not a “ground of fact” within the meaning of section 822.3’s exception to the three-year limitations period for PCR applications. 5 | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence2017As this court stated in Smith, “The legal and factual underpinnings of each of Smith’s claims were in existence during the three-year period . . . .” 542 N.W.2d at 854 . 5 We also find no basis for Long’s claim that “the errant [jury] instructions” generated structural error and this type of error should constitute an exception to the time-bar. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.