 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Nemecek v. Santee, No. 6-018 / 05-0518,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Punitive damage award was supported by clear and convincing evidence and was not grossly excessive because for 40 separate violations of Iowa Code § 903.1(1)(a), the trespass statute, the property owner could be fined a maximum of $ 20,000, more than twice the amount of the punitive damages awarded.
|
|||||
| Schmitz v. City of Dubuque, No. 5-880 / 05-0709,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Iowa Code § 668.3(1)(a), finding of equal negligence was not inconsistent with district court's entry of judgment in favor of city where city should not have anticipated harm to citizen despite known or obvious nature of trail drop-off; thus, city had no duty to warn citizen of the drop-off or to take action to remove the danger posed.
|
|||||
| State v. Baugh, No. 5-953 / 05-0210,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction of operating while intoxicated was reversed and remanded because the State did not charge defendant with operating while intoxicated until eighty-one days after his arrest, and the State did not establish good cause for the delay in filing the operating while intoxicated trial information.
|
|||||
| State v. Brandt, No. 5-958 / 05-0368,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, second offense, in violation of Iowa Code § 321J.2. Defendant swerved across the center line of a highway into arresting officer's lane of traffic. Defendant smelled of alcohol. He also failed or refused to perform several field sobriety tests.
|
|||||
| State v. Brown, No. 5-956 / 05-0266,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an assault case, counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to jury instructions because the language used was the same as that interpreted by the Iowa Supreme Court to mean specific intent, and therefore, no further clarifying language was needed to inform the jury that the submitted offense was a specific intent crime.
|
|||||
| State v. Grant, No. 5-942 / 05-0020,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction of possession of five grams or less of methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, in violation of Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(c)(6), was affirmed because police found eight individually packaged portions of methamphetamine and an address book containing the names of drug manufacturers or dealers.
|
|||||
| State v. Jones, No. 5-822 / 04-0021,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In sexual abuse case, court erred by denying defendant's request to recall complainant for further cross-examination, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, on the issue of her financial interest in outcome of the case because that bore directly on credibility of her claims that she did not consent to sex act with defendant.
|
|||||
| State v. Knudson, No. 5-948 / 05-0153,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no substantial basis for issuance of a warrant to search defendant's home where the evidence did not provide a nexus between defendant's drug use and the property searched. Mere fact that defendant may have smoked marijuana did not give rise to reasonable inference that drugs and related items would be found in her residence and garage.
|
|||||
| State v. Scarlett, No. 6-029 / 05-0925,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentencing court's consideration of allegation that defendant used knife during the incident that formed the factual basis for his guilty plea was improper as it was relevant to the proof of an unprosecuted offense, rather than the charge defendant pled guilty to, was not admitted by defendant in his plea, and was not otherwise sufficiently proved.
|
|||||
| State v. Tate, No. 5-835 / 04-1479,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, February 15, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder case, a court properly admitted evidence of defendant's verbally abusive language directed at the child victim because the defense theory was that defendant accidentally dropped the child; thus, the intent of defendant was at issue and his attitude toward the victim was relevant to determine his intent.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
