 |
|
 |
|
|
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 N.G., No. 7-524 / 07-0967,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order terminating a father's parental rights to his child under Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(h) was upheld where father's compliance with case plan did not alleviate the adjudicatory concerns that precipitated the case. The child had been out of home for all but 83 days of her life, but the father had not progressed beyond supervised visitation with her.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of N.S., No. 7-446 / 07-0759,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An order terminating a father's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code § 232.116(1)(e) and (f) was upheld where the father could be in jail on drug charges until December 2008, and even then it was very unlikely that the child could be safely returned to his care. The father did nothing to deal with the problems that led to the child's removal.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of Q.S., No. 7-521 / 06-1653,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116 was proper because the father had unaddressed histories of child abuse and neglect, drug abuse, mental problems, unemployment, and lack of stable housing; because of his unwillingness to address the many issues that prevented him from appropriate parenting, the children could not be returned.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of T.A., No. 7-453 / 07-0905,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile court did not err in entering another permanent planned living arrangement under Iowa Code § 232.104(2)(d)(4) because, inter alia, after examination of stepfather, doctor opined that despite almost 2 years of treatment, unfortunately it did not appear as if he was at a place with his wife's children where reunification was a viable option.
|
|||||
| In the Interest of T.R.G., No. 7-447 / 07-0904,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Termination of a mother's parental rights under Iowa Code § 232.116 was proper because the mother's past performance showed that she was unwilling to place the children's needs before her own, the children had been out of the mother's care since August 2005, and she was still unable to offer them the stability they needed.
|
|||||
| Reynolds v. State, No. 7-429 / 06-1272,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Iowa Code § 822.6, district court should not have summarily dismissed defendant's claims as to whether trial attorney failed to preserve error on claim of prosecutorial misconduct, failed to object to reference of a witness's statement and to obtain a recording of the interview, and failed to strike a juror from the panel who knew a witness.
|
|||||
| Rogers v. Energy Panel Structures, Inc., No. 7-458 / 06-0294,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court properly dismissed clients' breach of contract and breach of warranty claims against company that manufactured building materials where there was no agency relationship between company and contractor that clients hired to construct home; although contractor was dealer of materials, there was no manifestation of consent and control by company.
|
|||||
| Stamp v. W. Iowa Mut. Ins. Ass'n, No. 7-217 / 06-1825,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was improperly granted in favor of insurer where insureds' claims were not excluded by the exclusion for standing seed or forage crops, straw or stubble where "stubble" and "stover" did not mean the same thing and the insured were not seeking coverage for the "stubble," which was the remaining, severed stalks after a harvest.
|
|||||
| State v. Boll, No. 7-182 / 05-2004,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.19(3), counsel had opportunity to question State's substituted witness in advance of his testimony before jury; thus, it was properly admitted. Defendant could not prove ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and his pro se claims were not raised in appellate counsel's briefs and could not be reviewed on appeal.
|
|||||
| State v. Corbett, No. 7-261 / 06-0572,
COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA, August 8, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Letters as to child's whereabouts purportedly written by defendant were inadmissible under Iowa R. Evid. 5.1004(3) as defendant did not attempt to secure originals and there was genuine question on authenticity. Letters were irrelevant and contained inadmissible hearsay. Defendant's request to instruct jury on necessity defense was properly denied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
