 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Mosher v. State, No. 6-1021 / 06-0168,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which plaintiff sued the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals and others after plaintiff had been placed on a dependent adult abuse registry, plaintiff's claims against the Department were subject to dismissal because Iowa Code § 669.16 prohibited suits against a state agency in its own name.
|
|||||
| Mt. Ayr Cmty. Sch. v. Burmeister, No. 6-1092 / 06-1238,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported prima facie showing employee was odd-lot employee; he had physical impairment due to back pain and was unable to work full-time, he had intelligence, education, and training to obtain employment but could not continue working due to his back condition, and employer did not present evidence of available jobs that he could perform.
|
|||||
| Ranschau v. Ranschau (In re Estate of Ranschau), No. 6-1034 / 06-0640,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in finding full amount of bank accounts were not assets of mother's estate as evidence clearly showed she and son intended accounts were for benefit of their farming partnership, not solely for mother's benefit; accounts were used solely for partnership and contained partnership funds and combine was valid inter vivos gift to him.
|
|||||
| Schwake v. City of Elma, No. 7-077 / 06-0614,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a bidder's attempt to enjoin a city from continuing to advertise for sale a building she contended she purchased, the city was not bound to sell the building to the bidder as the procedures under Iowa Code § 364.7 were not followed and, in advertising the sale, the city reserved the right to reject bids.
|
|||||
| State v. Abrahamson, No. 6-946 / 05-1653,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred by denying defendant's motion to dismiss the manufacturing methamphetamine charge because the district court's dismissal of the conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine charge for a violation of defendant's right to a speedy trial precluded the State from trying him on the manufacturing charge.
|
|||||
| State v. Anderson, No. 6-1058 / 06-1212,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a burglary and sexual abuse case, Iowa Code §§ 713.3, 709.3, after defendant was convicted, primary witness recanted her initial trial testimony; however, defendant's motion for new trial was denied because, from the written record, it was not entirely clear when the witness was telling the truth - during her trial testimony or her recantation.
|
|||||
| State v. Desimone, No. 6-898 / 05-1740,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal, because although the evidence in the record was disputed, there was sufficient evidence to generate a jury question on each of the elements of the crime charged, third-degree sexual abuse.
|
|||||
| State v. Hoffman, No. 6-950 / 05-2135,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of burglary in violation of Iowa Code §§ 713.1 and 713.6A(1) and manufacture of marijuana in violation of Iowa Code § 124.401(1)(d) and although court provided sufficient reasons for imposing incarceration rather than suspended sentences and probation it failed to provide reasons for decision to impose consecutive sentences.
|
|||||
| State v. Holmes, No. 6-1090 / 06-1169,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d), the trial court properly gave its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences at the time of the first sentencing hearing. At the remand hearing, the only issue before the trial court was the location of defendant's confinement for the criminal mischief charge. Thus, the trial court did not violate Rule 2.23(3)(d).
|
|||||
| State v. Hummel, No. 7-075 / 06-0598,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, March 14, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Acquittal was reversed and remanded for a final ruling on defendant's motion for a new trial, because the trial court erred in granting the motion in arrest of judgment based upon sufficiency of the evidence, and the trial court's statement in ruling on the motion for new trial that a new trial "would be granted" did not constitute a final ruling.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
