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 2012–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Teague v. Lanegreen2 sentences2020Id. at 81–82 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 315 , 109 S. Ct. at 1078 ). 2020Id. at 81–82 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 315 , 109 S. Ct. at 1078 ). | 1 | 2 |
Montgomery v. Louisianagreen1 sentence2020See Montgomery, 577 U.S. at ___, 136 S. Ct. at 729 (clarifying that Teague’s rule that new substantive rules apply retroactively “is best understood as resting upon constitutional premises” but also reserving the question of the constitutional status of Teague’s watershed-rules exception for another day). | 1 | 1 |
Schriro v. Summerlingreen1 sentence2019“This class of rules is extremely narrow, and ‘it is unlikely that any has yet to emerge.’” 6 Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 352 (2004) (altered for readability) (quoting Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 667, n.7 (2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Tyler v. Caingreen1 sentence2019“This class of rules is extremely narrow, and ‘it is unlikely that any has yet to emerge.’” 6 Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348, 352 (2004) (altered for readability) (quoting Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 667, n.7 (2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Rose v. Lundygreen1 sentence2019See Teague, 489 U.S. at 314 (providing examples of watershed rules as those that prevented “proceeding[s] . . . dominated by mob violence,” “prosecutor[s] knowingly ma[king] use of perjured testimony,” and convictions secured through “confession[s] extorted from the defendant by brutal methods” (quoting Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 544 (1982) (Stevens, J., dissenting))). | 1 | 1 |
Figuereo-Sanchez v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., Figuereo-Sanchez v. United States, 678 F.3d 1203 , 1209 (11th Cir.2012) (holding that “Padilla did not announce a watershed rule of criminal procedure”); see also United States v. Aceves, No. 10-00738, 2011 WL 976706 , *4 (D.Haw. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gideon v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences2026The only case to ever be applied in such a fashion is Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 344–45 (1963) (recognizing right to appointed counsel). 2022This is because McCoy is a refinement and extension of a presupposed watershed rule in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) and is not a watershed rule in and of itself. | 2 | 2022–2026 |
Brewer v. State
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 81–82 (quoting Teague, 489 U.S. at 315 , 109 S. Ct. at 1078 ). 2019Id. at 81-82 . | 2 | 2019–2020 |
Phillip Smith, II v. Josh Stein
green
1 sentence2022Stein, 982 F.3d at 235 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.