 |
|
 |
|
|
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 the Interest of S.F., No. 6-480 / 06-0718,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Child was adjudicated a child in need of assistance because of her serious mental impairment. When State moved to modify order, trial court abused its discretion in failing to appoint attorney to represent child, pursuant to Iowa Code § 232.89(2), because there was a conflict between roles of guardian ad litem and attorney.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of S.J., No. 6-597 /06-0982,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court affirmed order terminating a father's parental rights to two children pursuant to Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(b) and (e), as to the older child pursuant to (1)(f), and as to the younger child pursuant to (1)(h), because he did not preserve error on the issue of reunification and because termination did not violate his constitutional rights.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of S.P., No. 6-593 / 06-0904,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of the parents' application to modify a prior dispositional order and return their children to their care after the children were adjudicated children in need of assistance under Iowa Code § 232.2(6)(n), (o) was affirmed because there was evidence that one child had been sexually abused and was told by her parents to keep it a secret.
|
|||||
| Mosley v. State, No. 6-186 / 05-0517,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Applicant for post-conviction relief failed to show ineffective assistance under Sixth Amendment. Counsel returned to courtroom during child's testimony via closed circuit television to ask applicant if he had any additional questions of child; applicant never specified what questions he would ask child if allowed to communicate with counsel.
|
|||||
| State v. Appleby, No. 6-464 /05-1908,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Cossel, No. 6-373 / 05-1242,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction of operating while intoxicated, third offense, was affirmed because the officer had a reasonable suspicion a traffic violation was occurring and thus had probable cause to stop defendant's vehicle, when the officer testified that he observed defendant's rear license plate was not illuminated, in violation of Iowa Code § 321.388.
|
|||||
| State v. DeMichelis, No. 6-530 /05-0962,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion for new trial, because it appeared the district court utilized an incorrect standard of review, applying a sufficiency of the evidence standard and failing to weigh the evidence or make any independent determinations of credibility.
|
|||||
| State v. Douglas, No. 6-422 / 05-1020,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's rights under the Fourth Amendment and Iowa Const. art. I, § 8 were violated when officers failed to knock on a door to a staircase leading to defendant's apartment above a business because defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy, and only a minimal step would have been required to show reasonableness.
|
|||||
| State v. Fuqua, No. 6-455 /05-1440,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 9, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentences were vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing because the sentencing court impermissibly considered an unprosecuted charge that was neither admitted to by defendant nor otherwise sufficiently proven in the record.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
