At 10:00 a.m. on the second Monday in January of each odd-numbered year, the general
assembly shall convene. The president of the senate, or in the president’s absence some
person claiming to be a member, shall call the senate to order. If necessary, a temporary
president shall be chosen from the persons claiming to be elected senators. Some person
claiming to be elected a member of the house of representatives shall call the house to order.
The persons present claiming to be elected to the senate shall choose a secretary, and those
of the house of representatives, a clerk on a temporary basis.
[C51, §5; R60, §14; C73, §6; C97, §6; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §6; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, §2.2;
C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §2.3]
\n
Notes of Decisions
State of Iowa v. Tina Lynn Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015).
· cites it 2× “See ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Appellate Review of Sentences § 2.3(c) & cmt. e, at 42, 47 (1968) (noting that “a statement of reasons will be invaluable as an aid to the reviewing court [as] it is difficult to see how meaningful review…”
Latham v. Sullivan, 295 N.W.2d 472 (Iowa Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 6× “LaFave, Search & Seizure § 2.3, at 304 (1978) (quoting State v. Crea, 305 Minn.”
Davidson v. Van Lengen, 266 N.W.2d 436 (Iowa 1978).
· cites it 4× “It advances a policy of stability and conclusiveness.”
State v. Peckenschneider, 236 N.W.2d 344 (Iowa 1975).
· cites it 6× “See ABA Standards, Appellate Review of Sentences, § 2.3(c) (Approved Draft 1968); ABA Standards, Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures, § 5.”
State v. Hines, 225 N.W.2d 156 (Iowa 1975).
· cites it 4× “2d 604 (1972); ABA Standards, Speedy Trial, Approved Draft § 2.3(b), pp. 27-28. But nowhere do we find persuasive authority indicating a court congestion "good cause" may arise from the State's deliberate election to ignore all of several plain and well-known statutory…”
Blanton v. Barrick, 258 N.W.2d 306 (Iowa 1977).
· cites it 2× “This is why the American Bar Association Standards, The Prosecution Function, section 2.3, so strongly advocate establishment of full-time prosecutors.”
State v. Goff, 244 N.W.2d 579 (Iowa 1976).
· cites it 2× “The State was ready and willing to try defendant at any time; the docket was such that defendant's trial was set for soon after arraignment; defendant's motion for change of venue, filed shortly before trial date, necessarily removed the case from the trial assignment; Judge…”
State v. Jennings, 195 N.W.2d 351 (Iowa 1972).
· cites it 2× “Delay resulting from congestion of a trial docket attributable to exceptional circumstances, and unavailability of prosecutor or trial judge, may constitute good cause for a reasonable trial delay.”
State v. Brandt, 253 N.W.2d 253 (Iowa 1977).
· cites it 2× “Standards Relating to Speedy Trial § 2.3(e) (Approved Draft, 1968). This applicable standard provides: "2.”
State v. Harvey, 236 N.W.2d 47 (Iowa 1975).
· cites it 6× “Defendant urges upon us the adoption of the ABA Standards, Appellate Review of Sentences, § 2.3(c), concerning sentencing, as espoused in the concurring opinion in State v.”
State v. Horton, 231 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 1975).
· cites it 2× “I would adopt the rule in ABA Standards, Appellate Review of Sentences, § 2.3(c) (Approved Draft, 1968). It provides: "The sentencing judge should be required in every case to state his reasons for selecting the particular sentence imposed.”
Iowa Code § 2.3(a): 2 cases
Iowa Code § 2.3(b): 4 cases
State v. Hines, 225 N.W.2d 156 (Iowa 1975).
“2d 604 (1972); ABA Standards, Speedy Trial, Approved Draft § 2.3(b), pp. 27-28. But nowhere do we find persuasive authority indicating a court congestion "good cause" may arise from the State's deliberate election to ignore all of several plain and well-known statutory…”
State v. Goff, 244 N.W.2d 579 (Iowa 1976).
“The State was ready and willing to try defendant at any time; the docket was such that defendant's trial was set for soon after arraignment; defendant's motion for change of venue, filed shortly before trial date, necessarily removed the case from the trial assignment; Judge…”
State v. Jennings, 195 N.W.2d 351 (Iowa 1972).
“Delay resulting from congestion of a trial docket attributable to exceptional circumstances, and unavailability of prosecutor or trial judge, may constitute good cause for a reasonable trial delay.”
Iowa Code § 2.3(c): 6 cases
State of Iowa v. Tina Lynn Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015).
“See ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Appellate Review of Sentences § 2.3(c) & cmt. e, at 42, 47 (1968) (noting that “a statement of reasons will be invaluable as an aid to the reviewing court [as] it is difficult to see how meaningful review…”
State v. Peckenschneider, 236 N.W.2d 344 (Iowa 1975).
“See ABA Standards, Appellate Review of Sentences, § 2.3(c) (Approved Draft 1968); ABA Standards, Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures, § 5.”
State v. Harvey, 236 N.W.2d 47 (Iowa 1975).
“Defendant urges upon us the adoption of the ABA Standards, Appellate Review of Sentences, § 2.3(c), concerning sentencing, as espoused in the concurring opinion in State v.”
State v. Horton, 231 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 1975).
“I would adopt the rule in ABA Standards, Appellate Review of Sentences, § 2.3(c) (Approved Draft, 1968). It provides: "The sentencing judge should be required in every case to state his reasons for selecting the particular sentence imposed.”
Iowa Code § 2.3(e): 2 cases
State v. Brandt, 253 N.W.2d 253 (Iowa 1977).
“Standards Relating to Speedy Trial § 2.3(e) (Approved Draft, 1968). This applicable standard provides: "2.”
State v. Peckenschneider, 236 N.W.2d 344 (Iowa 1975).
“See ABA Standards, Appellate Review of Sentences, § 2.3(c) (Approved Draft 1968); ABA Standards, Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures, § 5.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.