Iowa Code
Iowa Code § 3.4 (2026)
Bills — approval — passage over veto
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
1. If the governor approves a bill, the governor shall sign and date it; if the governor returns the bill with objections and it afterwards passes as provided in the Constitution, a certificate, signed by the presiding officer of each house in the following form, shall be endorsed on or attached to the bill: \n Tue Dec 09 22:34:44 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 3 (26, 0) §3.4, STATUTES AND RELATED MATTERS 2\n\n This bill (or this item of an appropriation bill, as the case may be), having been returned by the governor, with objections, to the house in which it originated, and, after reconsideration, having again passed both houses by yeas and nays by a vote of two-thirds of the members of each house, has become a law this ............ day of .................................
2. An “appropriation bill” means a bill which has as its primary purpose the making of appropriations of money from the public treasury. [C51, §16, 17; R60, §19, 20; C73, §28, 29; C97, §32; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §50; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §3.4] 86 Acts, ch 1245, §2011; 2013 Acts, ch 90, §1 Iowa Constitution, Art. III, §16 \n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1971–2021 · leading case: Rants v. Vilsack, 684 N.W.2d 193 (Iowa 2004).
Rants v. Vilsack, 684 N.W.2d 193 (Iowa 2004). “However, Junkins II, decided in 1989, has been our most thorough consideration of the definition of appropriation bill to date.”
Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130 (Iowa 1988). “1245, § 2011 (codified at Iowa Code § 3.4 (1987)). On July 10, 1985, plaintiffs, a group of state legislators, filed a petition for declaratory judgment against defendant Governor Branstad.”
State v. Frank, 298 N.W.2d 324 (Iowa 1980). “The standard for excusing a juror who is challenged on the basis of such exposure shall be the same as the standard of acceptability recommended in section 3.4(b), above, except that a juror who has seen or heard reports of potentially prejudicial material shall be excused if…”
State v. McDaniel, 265 N.W.2d 917 (Iowa 1978). “Standard Relating to Fair Trial & Free Press § 3.4(a) (1968). The A.B.A. standard advocated by defendant provides for individual voir dire of prospective jurors in situations where jurors have been exposed to potentially prejudicial material.”
Freedom Fin. Bank v. Est. of Edward J. Boesen, 805 N.W.2d 802 (Iowa 2011). “Kurtz, Kurtz on Iowa Estates § 3.4, at 98 (3d ed.1995). By contrast, the Uniform Probate Code of 1969(UPC), adopted by sixteen states, 1 differs dramatically by limiting the amount of the dower protected from the estate’s creditors.”
Junkins v. Branstad, 448 N.W.2d 480 (Iowa 1989). “1245, § 2011 (codified at Iowa Code § 3.4 (1987)). Because of this new legislation, the district court granted the Governor's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the case was moot.”
Anderson v. Douglas & Lomason Co., 540 N.W.2d 277 (Iowa 1995). “Allan Farnsworth, Farnsworth on Contracts § 3.4, at 165 (1990) (hereinafter “Farnsworth”).”
State Ex Rel. City of Dubuque v. Conrad, 191 N.W.2d 648 (Iowa 1971). “He was charged with violation of section 3.4 of Dubuque Municipal Ordinance 33-46.”
In the Matter of the Est. of Vera E. Cawiezell (Iowa 2021). “2000). Under the Restatement standard, determining the “rationality” or “reasonability” of a restraint on alienation is a fact-intensive inquiry.”
Gene L. Franklin & Connie Johnson, Executors of the Fae Black Est. Gene L. Franklin, Connie Johnson, Curtis L. Franklin, & Gregory S. Franklin, plaintiffs-appellees/cross-appellants v. Michael Johnston, Elizabeth Johnston, Steve Johnston, Kasondra Johnston, James Yeager, & Judith Yeager, defendants-appellants/cross-appellees. (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). “at 292 (noting a right of preemption at a fixed price must be “reasonable under the circumstances” in order to be valid (citation omitted)); see also Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 3.4 (2000) (“A servitude that imposes a direct restraint on alienation of the…”
West Lakes Props., L.C. v. Greenspon Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (Iowa Ct. App. 2017). “”1 Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 3.4 cmt. b (Am. Law Inst. 2000). It is also telling that our supreme court has held a right of first refusal—otherwise known as a preemption—is subject to the statutory rule against perpetuities and the common law rule against…”
State of Iowa v. Theodore Ray Gathercole II (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). “The standard for excusing a juror who is challenged on the basis of such exposure shall be the same as the standard of acceptability recommended in section 3.4(b), above, except that a juror who has seen or heard reports of potentially prejudicial material shall be 10 excused if…”
— Iowa Code § 3.4(a) — 1 case
State v. McDaniel, 265 N.W.2d 917 (Iowa 1978). “Standard Relating to Fair Trial & Free Press § 3.4(a) (1968). The A.B.A. standard advocated by defendant provides for individual voir dire of prospective jurors in situations where jurors have been exposed to potentially prejudicial material.”
— Iowa Code § 3.4(b) — 2 cases
State v. Frank, 298 N.W.2d 324 (Iowa 1980). “The standard for excusing a juror who is challenged on the basis of such exposure shall be the same as the standard of acceptability recommended in section 3.4(b), above, except that a juror who has seen or heard reports of potentially prejudicial material shall be excused if…”
State of Iowa v. Theodore Ray Gathercole II (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). “The standard for excusing a juror who is challenged on the basis of such exposure shall be the same as the standard of acceptability recommended in section 3.4(b), above, except that a juror who has seen or heard reports of potentially prejudicial material shall be 10 excused if…”
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.