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 2019–2023 3 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. Corneliusgreen1 sentence2023See State v. Cornelius, 293 N.W.2d 267, 269 (Iowa 1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reynoldsgreen1 sentence2023Rule 5.404(b)(1) states, “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not 3 Although the State challenges error preservation on this issue, Howland raised the issue via pretrial motion in limine and received a sufficiently definitive ruling such that we find error preserved. 16 admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Although the “other act” referenced in the rule is not defined, our supreme court has looked to other jurisdictions to conclude it refers to bad acts, meaning “any conduct of the de | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rutledgegreen1 sentence2022See State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“Nothing 1In response to a question from the court, the foreperson said that the definition was not discussed among the jurors. 3 is more basic in the law of appeal and error than the axiom that a party cannot sing a song to us that was not first sung in trial court.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2019We choose to bypass the State’s error-preservation concerns, see, e.g., 12 State v. Taylor, 596 N.W.2d 55, 56 (Iowa 1999), and will consider the sufficiency of the evidence underlying each of Gomez’s remaining convictions. | 1 | 1 |
DeVoss v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Error Preservation The State challenges error preservation for each of Parmenter’s claims on appeal except his weight of the evidence claim. “[E]rror preservation is based on fairness.” DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 63 (Iowa 2002). “[O]ne party should not ambush another by raising issues on appeal, which that party did not raise in the district court.” Id. 2019Error Preservation The State challenges error preservation for each of Parmenter’s claims on appeal except his weight of the evidence claim. “[E]rror preservation is based on fairness.” DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 63 (Iowa 2002). “[O]ne party should not ambush another by raising issues on appeal, which that party did not raise in the district court.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Joseph G. Cooper, United States of America v. Elton E. Larkin, Jr.
green
1 sentence2023Rule 5.404(b)(1) states, “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not 3 Although the State challenges error preservation on this issue, Howland raised the issue via pretrial motion in limine and received a sufficiently definitive ruling such that we find error preserved. 16 admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Although the “other act” referenced in the rule is not defined, our supreme court has looked to other jurisdictions to conclude it refers to bad acts, meaning “any conduct of the de | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Brenda J. Alcala v. Marriott International, Inc. and Courtyard Management Corporation D/B/A Quad Cities Courtyard by Marriott
green
1 sentence2023Rule 5.404(b)(1) states, “Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not 3 Although the State challenges error preservation on this issue, Howland raised the issue via pretrial motion in limine and received a sufficiently definitive ruling such that we find error preserved. 16 admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.” Although the “other act” referenced in the rule is not defined, our supreme court has looked to other jurisdictions to conclude it refers to bad acts, meaning “any conduct of the de | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.