 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Meirick v. Dunn, No. 6-320 / 05-1208,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award in favor of an owner on his conversion claim was affirmed because the district court correctly found that in the instant action for conversion, the proper measure of damages was the fair and reasonable market value of the dirt at the time and place of taking.
|
|||||
| Rosdail v. Byrne, No. 6-295 / 04-2070,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying police chief and assistant police chiefs' motion for directed verdict because detectives were not justified in their reliance of the representation made by assistant chiefs concerning their pay where detectives' raises were dependent upon the future actions of the city council, the safety commissioner and police chief.
|
|||||
| Ross v. Gomez (In re Estate of Drummond), No. 6-411 / 04-0558,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ross v. Thousand Adventures of Iowa, Inc., No. 6-291 / 04-1546,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Despite the fact that payments on installment contracts went to a lender, it could have sought payment from a guarantor of a loan in Iowa, and it held mortgages on Iowa real estate as security for a loan, this was insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction in Iowa due to a lack of minimum contacts under the Fourteenth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Saladino v. Harms, No. 6-461 / 05-1785,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order granting petition for relief from domestic abuse was affirmed because the complainant's petition complied with the fair notice requirement, as it alleged domestic abuse and specifically mentioned a "confrontation" that took place on September 20, 2005.
|
|||||
| State v. Cosper, No. 6-371 / 05-1175,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a drug case, defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel when no motion for a new trial under Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(2) was made since the case was not one where the evidence preponderated heavily against the verdict; defendant admitted to selling drugs, and the items found were inconsistent with mere personal use.
|
|||||
| State v. Dixon, No. 6-435 / 05-1741,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant's car was parked in a traffic lane with no hazard lights, and defendant was found slumped over his wheel, with the smell of alcohol on his breath and slow reacting pupils, the appellate court affirmed defendant's conviction for operating while intoxicated, a serious misdemeanor in violation of Iowa Code § 321J.2(2)(a).
|
|||||
| State v. Gomez, No. 6-245 / 05-1179,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver was affirmed because there was ample evidence corroborating defendant's confession under Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.21(4), and the jury determined defendant was not falsely admitting ownership of the drugs to protect family members as he suggested at trial.
|
|||||
| State v. Harris, No. 6-418 / 05-0834,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, July 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a drug case, a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct was denied because a comment concerning a co-defendant's criminal history did not influence the jury's guilty verdict; one juror could not remember making the statement, only a few jurors heard it, the conversation was very short, and the evidence against defendant was strong.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
