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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 20 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Auen v. Alcoholic Beverages Division of Iowa Department of Commerce.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Auen v. Alcoholic Beverages Division of Iowa Department of Commerce Anchor | green | “we determine legislative intent from the words chosen by the legislature, not what it should or might have said.” | 8 |
| 2 | Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Commission | green | “the question of whether interpretive discretion has clearly been vested in an agency is easily resolved when the agency's enabling statute explicitly addresses the issue.” | 8 |
| 3 | Iowa Medical Society and Iowa Society of Anesthesiologists v. Iowa Board of Nursing | green | “we review the district court's decision to determine whether it correctly applied the law.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.