Iowa Code » Chapter 3 — STATUTES AND RELATED MATTERS
Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 3.1 (2026)

Form of bills

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Bills designed to amend, revise, enact, codify, or repeal a law:

a. Shall refer to the numbers of the sections or chapters of the Code to be amended or repealed, but it is not necessary to refer to the sections or chapters in the title.

b. Shall refer to the session of the general assembly and the sections and chapters of the Acts to be amended if the bill relates to a section or sections of an Act not appearing in the Code.

c. Shall express all references to statutes in numerals.

2. The title to a bill shall contain a brief statement of the purpose of the bill, however all detail matters properly connected with the subject so expressed may be omitted from the title. [C73, §38; C97, §41; S13, §41-a, -b; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §47; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §3.1] 84 Acts, ch 1067, §2; 90 Acts, ch 1168, §2; 2004 Acts, ch 1101, §2; 2008 Acts, ch 1031, §4; 2014 Acts, ch 1141, §51 Publication of bills, §2.9 \n

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: Rush v. Ray, 362 N.W.2d 479 (Iowa 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rush v. Ray, 362 N.W.2d 479 (Iowa 1985). · cites it 8× “39 in violation of Iowa Code section 3.1. Section 3.1 prescribes *484 the procedure to "amend, revise, codify, or repeal a law"; however, we have held that the provisions of this statute are directory and non-compliance does not invalidate.”
State v. Trudo, 253 N.W.2d 101 (Iowa 1977). · cites it 2× “Standards Relating to Joinder and Severance § 3.1(a), at 46-47 (Approved Draft, 1968): "3.”
State v. Seager, 341 N.W.2d 420 (Iowa 1983). · cites it 2× “As stated in 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure section 3.1, at 447-48 (1978): [T]he probable cause determination in response to the motion to suppress must be made upon the basis of the information which was presented to the magistrate at the time the warrant was issued; a defective…”
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. ECO, Inc., 821 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (S.D. Iowa 2011). · cites it 10× “In support of its position, Eco 2007 points to § 3.1 of the APA, which provides: Excluded Liabilities.”
State of Iowa v. Demetrius S. Rimmer v. Rona Murphy v. Melonicka Thomas, 877 N.W.2d 652 (Iowa 2016). “”); 2 LaFave § 3.1(j)j at 56 (noting that “[t]here is nothing in' the Constitution that requires a court to permit a guilty person rightfully convicted to escape justice because he was brought to trial against his will” unless the “defendant’s presence is acquired by ‘government…”
Schaer v. Webster Cnty., 644 N.W.2d 327 (Iowa 2002). “Contracts § 37, at 470 (1999); I Farnsworth, § 3.1, at 184. If there is a misunderstanding in the language that relates to the object of the agreement so that “one party [understands] [it] is buying one thing and the other party thinks [it] is selling another thing, no meeting…”
Rouse v. Walter & Assocs., L.L.C., 513 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (S.D. Iowa 2007). · cites it 2× “Section 3.1(2) of ISU’s Personnel Policy states, “Faculty members have the responsibility of disclosing intellectual property in a timely fashion when it arises in their work.”
State v. Thomas, 540 N.W.2d 658 (Iowa 1995). “Professor La-Fave has explained this as follows: [A]ny probable cause review in response to a motion to suppress must be made upon the basis of the information presented to the magistrate at the time the warrant was issued; a defective warrant cannot be resuscitated by…”
Burns v. Nimmo, 545 F. Supp. 544 (N.D. Iowa 1982). · cites it 2× “Title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, § 3.1, H (n) provides: (n) “Willful misconduct” means an act involving conscious wrongdoing or known prohibited action (malum in se or malum prohib-itum).”
Cranston v. Saggau, 526 N.W.2d 338 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 8× “However, it failed to mention an applicable requirement of section 3.1 of Article XI of the zoning ordinance that “no part of any new building shall project beyond a line joining the two adjacent corners of the buildings on either side.”
State v. Kuchenreuther, 218 N.W.2d 621 (Iowa 1974). “See ABA Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty, § 3.1 and Commentary at 60-69 (Approved Draft 1968).”
State v. Bass, 320 N.W.2d 824 (Iowa 1982). “1 (1974), which provides, in relevant part: “To protect the right to speedy trial of a person serving a term of imprisonment either within or without the jurisdiction, it should be provided by rule or statute and, where necessary, interstate compact, that: (a) If the prosecuting…”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— Iowa Code § 3.1(1) — 1 case
Allen v. State of Iowa, Dept. of Pers., 528 N.W.2d 583 (Iowa 1995).
— Iowa Code § 3.1(2) — 1 case
Rouse v. Walter & Assocs., L.L.C., 513 F. Supp. 2d 1041 (S.D. Iowa 2007). “Section 3.1(2) of ISU’s Personnel Policy states, “Faculty members have the responsibility of disclosing intellectual property in a timely fashion when it arises in their work.”
— Iowa Code § 3.1(321) — 1 case
Lyons v. Lange, 447 N.W.2d 407 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989).
— Iowa Code § 3.1(a) — 3 cases
State v. Trudo, 253 N.W.2d 101 (Iowa 1977). “Standards Relating to Joinder and Severance § 3.1(a), at 46-47 (Approved Draft, 1968): "3.”
State v. Runge, 228 N.W.2d 35 (Iowa 1975).
State v. Ogan, 497 N.W.2d 902 (Iowa 1993).
— Iowa Code § 3.1(b) — 1 case
State of Iowa v. Yale Stevens (Iowa 2022).
— Iowa Code § 3.1(d) — 2 cases
State v. Thomas, 540 N.W.2d 658 (Iowa 1995). “Professor La-Fave has explained this as follows: [A]ny probable cause review in response to a motion to suppress must be made upon the basis of the information presented to the magistrate at the time the warrant was issued; a defective warrant cannot be resuscitated by…”
State of Iowa v. Jesse Jon Harbach (Iowa 2024).
— Iowa Code § 3.1(j) — 2 cases
State of Iowa v. Demetrius S. Rimmer v. Rona Murphy v. Melonicka Thomas, 877 N.W.2d 652 (Iowa 2016). “”); 2 LaFave § 3.1(j)j at 56 (noting that “[t]here is nothing in' the Constitution that requires a court to permit a guilty person rightfully convicted to escape justice because he was brought to trial against his will” unless the “defendant’s presence is acquired by ‘government…”
Amended June 22, 2016 State of Iowa v. Demetrius S. Rimmer v. Rona Murphy v. Melonicka Thomas (Iowa 2016).
— Iowa Code § 3.1(m) — 1 case
Burns v. Nimmo, 545 F. Supp. 544 (N.D. Iowa 1982). “Title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, § 3.1, H (n) provides: (n) “Willful misconduct” means an act involving conscious wrongdoing or known prohibited action (malum in se or malum prohib-itum).”
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.