Walter James Mead v. State of Iowa

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Huerta and the long line of Arizona cases upon which it relied “no longer remain[ ] authoritative”
• concluding that there were \sufficiently compelling\ reasons to dispense with stare decisis and overrule prior case law requiring the remedy of automatic reversal
• holding that Huerta and the long line of Arizona cases upon which it relied “no longer remain[] authoritative”
• holding that a court’s error in failing to strike potential jurors for cause was subject to harmless error review because even though the defendant had to exercise peremptory challenges on those potential jurors, he did not use all of his peremptory challenges
• noting that “in cases involving statutory interpretation the burden [required to overrule a prior decision] is highest”
• explaining that respect for precedent requires that a court not overrule precedent unless there are compelling reasons to do so, and deference to precedent is strongest when prior decisions construe a statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).