5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1857–2021 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. Elstongreen1 sentence2021See State v. Elston, 735 N.W.2d 196, 199 (Iowa 2007). 6 To evaluate Wise’s claim, we start with the rule on multiple offenses: Two or more indictable public offenses which arise from the same transaction or occurrence or from two or more transactions or occurrences constituting parts of a common scheme or plan, when alleged and prosecuted contemporaneously, shall be alleged and prosecuted as separate counts in a single complaint, information or indictment, unless, for good cause shown, the trial court in its discretion determines otherwise. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zinser v. Board of Supervisors
green
2 sentences1911This point is clearly made in Zinser v. Board, 137 Iowa, 660 . 1909This point is clearly made in Zinser v. Board, 137 Iowa, 660 . | 3 | 1909–1911 |
State v. Oetken
green
1 sentence2021Thus on the joinder issue, Wise fails to prove prejudice by a preponderance of the evidence.2 Oetken, 613 N.W.2d at 689 . 2 Further undermining Wise’s claim, the district court instructed the jury: “If you find the defendant guilty on any one of the eight counts, you are not to conclude the 10 B. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Hartshorn v. Wright County District Court
green
1 sentence1909And there is always some risk as to the success of tbe enterprise not to be overlooked.” In Hartshorn v. Wright County, 142 Iowa, 72 , it is said: “The ordinary member of a board of supervisors has no such knowledge pi tbe subject of drainage, plans, and districts, as to justify leaving this matter to bis judgment or discretion, arid it was a wise requirement which limited tbe board in its final action to some plan which was approved by a competent engineer. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Aldis v. Johnson
neutral
1 sentence1857Cas., 108; Hobbs v. Horton, 1 Verm., 136 ; S. C., 2 Ch. | 1 | 1857–1857 |
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.