5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 7011green2 sentences2016In considering whether a judge has violated rule 51:2.11(A), “drawing all inferences favorable to the honesty and care of the judge whose conduct has been questioned could collapse the appearance of impropriety standard ... into a demand for proof of actual impropriety.” Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 292 Conn. 1 , 970 A.2d 656, 669 (2009) (quoting United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 157 (5th Cir.1995)) (describing the appropriate standard under a nearly identical rule). 2016In considering whether a judge has violated rule 51:2.11(A), “drawing all inferences favorable to the honesty and care of the judge whose conduct has been questioned could collapse the appearance of impropriety standard . . . into a demand for proof of actual impropriety.” Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 970 A.2d 656, 669 (Conn. 2009) (quoting United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 157 (5th Cir. 1995)) (describing the appropriate standard under a nearly identical rule). | 2 | 2 |
Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.green2 sentences2016In considering whether a judge has violated rule 51:2.11(A), “drawing all inferences favorable to the honesty and care of the judge whose conduct has been questioned could collapse the appearance of impropriety standard ... into a demand for proof of actual impropriety.” Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 292 Conn. 1 , 970 A.2d 656, 669 (2009) (quoting United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 157 (5th Cir.1995)) (describing the appropriate standard under a nearly identical rule). 2016In considering whether a judge has violated rule 51:2.11(A), “drawing all inferences favorable to the honesty and care of the judge whose conduct has been questioned could collapse the appearance of impropriety standard . . . into a demand for proof of actual impropriety.” Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp., 970 A.2d 656, 669 (Conn. 2009) (quoting United States v. Jordan, 49 F.3d 152, 157 (5th Cir. 1995)) (describing the appropriate standard under a nearly identical rule). | 2 | 2 |
Gibbs Ex Rel. Gibbs v. Wilmethgreen2 sentences1986They rely on this court’s holding in Gibbs v. Wilmeth, 261 Iowa 1015, 1022 , 157 N.W.2d 93, 97 (1968), where we stated that a nearly identical instruction on legal excuse was fatally defective because it was “incomplete and could be nothing except confusing to the jury.” We conclude, as we did in Gibbs , that this type of a general instruction on legal excuse is erroneous because it did not fully and fairly instruct the jury on the issue of legal excuse. 1986They rely on this court’s holding in Gibbs v. Wilmeth, 261 Iowa 1015, 1022 , 157 N.W.2d 93, 97 (1968), where we stated that a nearly identical instruction on legal excuse was fatally defective because it was “incomplete and could be nothing except confusing to the jury.” We conclude, as we did in Gibbs , that this type of a general instruction on legal excuse is erroneous because it did not fully and fairly instruct the jury on the issue of legal excuse. | 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. Mann
green
2 sentences2016Recusal is required under rule 51:2.11(A) when a reasonable person might reasonably doubt the judge’s impartiality because the rule anticipates “that people who have not served on the bench are often all too willing to indulge suspicions and doubts concerning the integrity of judges.” Mann, 512 N.W.2d at 532 (quoting Liljeberg v. Health Servs. 2016Recusal is required under rule 51:2.11(A) when a reasonable person might reasonably doubt the judge’s impartiality because the rule 15 anticipates “that people who have not served on the bench are often all too willing to indulge suspicions and doubts concerning the integrity of judges.” Mann, 512 N.W.2d at 532 (quoting Liljeberg v. Health Servs. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
McClure v. International Livestock Improvement Services Corp.
green
1 sentence2021In McClure v. International Livestock Improvement Services Corp., we rejected a nearly identical claim under the IWPCL. 369 N.W.2d 801 , 802–03, 805 (Iowa 1985). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In the Interest of T.S. and K.G., Minor Children, L.G., Mother, K.G., Father of K.G.
green
1 sentence2019This court rejected a nearly identical claim in In re T.S., 868 N.W.2d 425 , 432–34 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.