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 1972–2025 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. Pattersongreen1 sentence2025See State v. Patterson, 586 N.W.2d 83, 83 (Iowa 1998) (per curiam). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schooleygreen1 sentence2018Thus, while Osborn is certainly correct in claiming the State could show knowing possession by proving Osborn viewed the prohibited depictions, see, e.g., State v. Schooley, 804 N.W.2d 105, 108 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (“D.S. gave a clear account of the multiple times she witnessed her father viewing pornographic depictions of young girls.”); State v. Cooper, No. 07-1988, 2009 WL 139520 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2009) (using file timestamps to show when depictions were opened to prove knowing 17 possession), he is as certainly incorrect in contending the State cannot prove knowing possession | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Randy Scott Meyersgreen1 sentence2018Osborn’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails because it does not recognize that “circumstantial evidence [can be] equally as probative as direct.” State v. Meyers, 799 N.W.2d 132, 138 (Iowa 2011). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Milesgreen1 sentence2016See Compiano, 154 12 N.W.2d at 849 (“It is ‘important for the orderly administration of criminal justice that findings on conflicting evidence by trial courts on motions for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence remain undisturbed except for most extraordinary circumstances . . . .’” (citation omitted)); see also State v. Miles, 490 N.W.2d 798, 799 (Iowa 1992) (“From its closer vantage point, the presiding trial court has a clearer view of [the] crucial question [of whether the defendant is making a legitimate claim or is moving for new trial in desperation], and we generally yield to i | 1 | 1 |
Westergard v. Des Moines Railway Co.green1 sentence2016See Compiano, 154 12 N.W.2d at 849 (“It is ‘important for the orderly administration of criminal justice that findings on conflicting evidence by trial courts on motions for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence remain undisturbed except for most extraordinary circumstances . . . .’” (citation omitted)); see also State v. Miles, 490 N.W.2d 798, 799 (Iowa 1992) (“From its closer vantage point, the presiding trial court has a clearer view of [the] crucial question [of whether the defendant is making a legitimate claim or is moving for new trial in desperation], and we generally yield to i | 1 | 1 |
Heck v. Andersongreen1 sentence2016See Compiano, 154 12 N.W.2d at 849 (“It is ‘important for the orderly administration of criminal justice that findings on conflicting evidence by trial courts on motions for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence remain undisturbed except for most extraordinary circumstances . . . .’” (citation omitted)); see also State v. Miles, 490 N.W.2d 798, 799 (Iowa 1992) (“From its closer vantage point, the presiding trial court has a clearer view of [the] crucial question [of whether the defendant is making a legitimate claim or is moving for new trial in desperation], and we generally yield to i | 1 | 1 |
United States v. David L. Simmonsgreen2 sentences1998See United States v. Simmons, 699 F.2d 1250, 1252 (D.C.Cir.1983) (no witness intimidation where refusal to testify was on advice of witness’s own counsel); see also State v. Baylor, 17 Wash.App. 616 , 565 P.2d 99, 102 (Ct.App.1977) (same). 1998See United States v. Simmons, 699 F.2d 1250, 1252 (D.C.Cir.1983) (no witness intimidation where refusal to testify was on advice of witness's own counsel); see also State v. Baylor, 17 Wash.App. 616 , 565 P.2d 99, 102 (Ct.App.1977) (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Baylorgreen2 sentences1998See United States v. Simmons, 699 F.2d 1250, 1252 (D.C.Cir.1983) (no witness intimidation where refusal to testify was on advice of witness’s own counsel); see also State v. Baylor, 17 Wash.App. 616 , 565 P.2d 99, 102 (Ct.App.1977) (same). 1998See United States v. Simmons, 699 F.2d 1250, 1252 (D.C.Cir.1983) (no witness intimidation where refusal to testify was on advice of witness’s own counsel); see also State v. Baylor, 17 Wash.App. 616 , 565 P.2d 99, 102 (Ct.App.1977) (same). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. United States
red
2 sentences1972However, once an objector has established qualifications as a “person aggrieved” by an unlawful search and seizure, he must comply with this requirement set forth in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, at 261 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , at 731, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, at 702 , in order to successfully challenge admissibility of relevant evidence on the basis of illegality of the search: “Ordinarily, then, it is entirely proper to require of one who seeks to challenge the legality of a search as the basis for suppressing relevant evidence that he allege, and if the allegation be disputed that he establish, that 1972However, once an objector has established qualifications as a “person aggrieved” by an unlawful search and seizure, he must comply with this requirement set forth in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, at 261 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , at 731, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, at 702 , in order to successfully challenge admissibility of relevant evidence on the basis of illegality of the search: “Ordinarily, then, it is entirely proper to require of one who seeks to challenge the legality of a search as the basis for suppressing relevant evidence that he allege, and if the allegation be disputed that he establish, that | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.