 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| In re Marriage of McKenzie, No. 132 / 05-0106,
SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial change of circumstances did not exist under Iowa Code § 598.21(9) entitling a father to a reduction in his child support obligation because, at the time he quit his job in Iowa, he had no idea what his earning capacity would be, and his desire for self-fulfillment was outweighed by a pre-existing duty to provide support for his child.
|
|||||
| State v. Greene, No. 130 / 04-0067,
SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case remanded for judgment of conviction on misdemeanor stalking because the district court erred in submitting the issue of defendant's possession of a dangerous weapon on the stalking charge, as the evidence could not reasonably support a finding that the steel shards were designed primarily for inflicting death or injury under Iowa Code § 702.7.
|
|||||
| State v. Straw, No. 111 / 04-0952,
SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a direct appeal, Iowa Code § 814.7, although counsel was deficient for failing to object to the trial court's failure to inform defendant of the sentencing consequences of his guilty plea, he did not show prejudice because there was nothing in the record indicating whether or not counsel told him about the possibility of consecutive sentences.
|
|||||
| State v. Wiederien, No. 109 / 04-0815,
SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, February 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No-contact order was reversed and remanded because Iowa Code § 708.12 was ambiguous because it was susceptible to two meanings, and the appellate court ruled that Iowa Code § 708.12(2) did not give a court the authority to continue a no-contact order when it acquitted defendant on the harassment charge.
|
|||||
| State v. Bolsinger, No. 148 / 03-0823,
SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Boys' consent to being touched on their genitals was not vitiated by the fact that defendant, supervisor at a facility for the boys, was touching them for sexual gratification even though he told them that it was for a medical exam; thus, defendant's conviction for three counts of third-degree sexual abuse under Iowa Code § 709.4(1) was reversed.
|
|||||
| State v. Carey, No. 104 / 03-1953,
SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to a provocation instruction because, regardless of whose version of events was believed, the evidence did not show that defendant provoked an attack or that the neighbor used disproportionate force; also defendant failed to establish prejudice resulted from his counsel's failure object to improper prosecutorial comments.
|
|||||
| State v. Newell, No. 158 / 03-0624,
SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, February 10, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, a court did not err by admitting testimony concerning the relationship between defendant and the victim because evidence that he was heard to call the victim derogatory names was not hearsay, Iowa R. Evid. 5.801, as it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that the victim was what he called her.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
