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 1 courts 2014–2022 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 of Iowa v. Tony Gene Lukinsgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Lukins, 846 N.W.2d 902, 912 (Iowa 2014); State v. McConnelee, 690 N.W.2d 27, 33 (Iowa 2004). 2017Where, as here, the proponent of the evidence alleges contravention of a rule rather than a constitutional violation, we reverse only if “the complaining party has 29 suffered a miscarriage of justice or his rights have been injuriously affected.” State v. Lukins, 846 N.W.2d 902, 911 (Iowa 2014). | 2 | 2 |
State v. McConneleegreen1 sentence2022See State v. Lukins, 846 N.W.2d 902, 912 (Iowa 2014); State v. McConnelee, 690 N.W.2d 27, 33 (Iowa 2004). | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Matthew Joseph Elliottgreen1 sentence2020Where a non-constitutional error is claimed, the test for determining whether the evidence is prejudicial and requires reversal is: “Does it sufficiently appear that the rights of the complaining party have been injuriously affected by the error or that [the person] has suffered a miscarriage of justice?” State v. Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d 19, 29 (Iowa 2004) (citation omitted). “[A]dmission of hearsay evidence over a proper objection is presumed to be prejudicial error unless the contrary is affirmatively established.” State v. Elliott, 806 N.W.2d 660, 669 (Iowa 2011) (alteration in original) (cita | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sullivangreen1 sentence2020Where a non-constitutional error is claimed, the test for determining whether the evidence is prejudicial and requires reversal is: “Does it sufficiently appear that the rights of the complaining party have been injuriously affected by the error or that [the person] has suffered a miscarriage of justice?” State v. Sullivan, 679 N.W.2d 19, 29 (Iowa 2004) (citation omitted). “[A]dmission of hearsay evidence over a proper objection is presumed to be prejudicial error unless the contrary is affirmatively established.” State v. Elliott, 806 N.W.2d 660, 669 (Iowa 2011) (alteration in original) (cita | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Californiared1 sentence2015“Before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Raymond Carl Redmondgreen1 sentence2014“An erroneous evidentiary ruling is harmless if it does not cause prejudice.” State v. Redmond, 803 N.W.2d 112, 127 (Iowa 2011). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.