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 2022–2024 5 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. Schminkeygreen2 sentences2023No additional fact-finding is required. “[O]ur first and only inquiry is whether the record shows a factual basis for [the defendant’s] guilty plea to the charge.” State v. Schminkey, 597 N.W.2d 785, 788 (Iowa 1999) (en banc). 2023No additional fact-finding is required. “[O]ur first and only inquiry is whether the record shows a factual basis for [the defendant’s] guilty plea to the charge.” State v. Schminkey, 597 N.W.2d 785, 788 (Iowa 1999) (en banc). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Shanahangreen1 sentence2024Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State while affording the jury its right “to weigh the evidence and place credibility where it belongs,” State Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d 121, 135 (Iowa 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), the jury could rationally conclude that Elliott was guilty as an aider and abettor “by knowingly advising or encouraging the act in some way before or when it [was] committed.” For his second challenge, Elliott claims there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction “for assault causing serious injury because [he] did not injure an | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.