adjudication bar in Iowa

1974Boone Biblical College v. Forrest, 223 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 275 N.W. 132, 135 , 116 A.L.R. 67 has this statement: “* * * The rule seems to be well established in most jurisdictions, including our own, that a party, who desires to set up a prior adjudication as a bar to a claim made by an opposing party, must properly plead such adjudication before evidence will be admissible in regard to it. * * * [citing authorities].” See also Lambert v. Rice, 143 Iowa 70, 74 , 120 N.W. 96, 97 ; Perry v. Reeder, 235 Iowa 532, 535 , 17 N.W.2d 98, 100 ; State v. Nichols, 241 Iowa 952 , 969— 970, 44 N.W.2d 49, 58-

1974Boone Biblical College v. Forrest, 223 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 275 N.W. 132, 135 , 116 A.L.R. 67 has this statement: “* * * The rule seems to be well established in most jurisdictions, including our own, that a party, who desires to set up a prior adjudication as a bar to a claim made by an opposing party, must properly plead such adjudication before evidence will be admissible in regard to it. * * * [citing authorities].” See also Lambert v. Rice, 143 Iowa 70, 74 , 120 N.W. 96, 97 ; Perry v. Reeder, 235 Iowa 532, 535 , 17 N.W.2d 98, 100 ; State v. Nichols, 241 Iowa 952 , 969— 970, 44 N.W.2d 49, 58-

2023The requirements for the doctrine’s application are (1) “the successful assertion of [an] inconsistent position in a prior action” and (2) “judicial acceptance of the inconsistent position.” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, 405 N.W.2d at 814 ). “[W]here there is no risk of inconsistent or misleading App. 1986) (concluding dismissal of workers’ compensation claim without prejudice “was not an adjudication of the claim, and was no bar to claimant’s refiling the same and its hearing”); Harris v. Delong, No. 17AP-676, 2018 WL 3146062 , at *2 (Ohio Ct. App. June 26, 2018) (“Generally, a dismissal wit

2023The requirements for the doctrine’s application are (1) “the successful assertion of [an] inconsistent position in a prior action” and (2) “judicial acceptance of the inconsistent position.” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, 405 N.W.2d at 814 ). “[W]here there is no risk of inconsistent or misleading App. 1986) (concluding dismissal of workers’ compensation claim without prejudice “was not an adjudication of the claim, and was no bar to claimant’s refiling the same and its hearing”); Harris v. Delong, No. 17AP-676, 2018 WL 3146062 , at *2 (Ohio Ct. App. June 26, 2018) (“Generally, a dismissal wit

2021And evidence was presented at the adjudication hearing that the mother continued to exhibit behavioral indicators of methamphetamine use. “[U]nder Iowa Code section 232.6(c)(2) . . . ‘a juvenile court [can] reasonably determine that a parent’s active addiction to methamphetamine is “imminently likely” to result in harmful effects to the physical, mental or social wellbeing of the children in the parent’s care.’” L.H., 904 N.W.2d at 150–51 (citation omitted).

2011Id.

1990Wong, 422 N.E.2d at 1287 ; see also Friedman, 412 Mich. at 52-55 , 312 N.W.2d at 605-06 ; 52 Am.Jur.2d Malicious Prosecution § 64 (1970) (“Except on proof of his actual knowledge that the charge was groundless, ... an attorney should not be held liable for the malicious prosecution of a third person if it appears that he acted with the authority of his client, solely in the interest of his client, and without knowledge of fraud, collusion, or sinister intent to injure or deceive the third party”).

1974Boone Biblical College v. Forrest, 223 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 275 N.W. 132, 135 , 116 A.L.R. 67 has this statement: “* * * The rule seems to be well established in most jurisdictions, including our own, that a party, who desires to set up a prior adjudication as a bar to a claim made by an opposing party, must properly plead such adjudication before evidence will be admissible in regard to it. * * * [citing authorities].” See also Lambert v. Rice, 143 Iowa 70, 74 , 120 N.W. 96, 97 ; Perry v. Reeder, 235 Iowa 532, 535 , 17 N.W.2d 98, 100 ; State v. Nichols, 241 Iowa 952 , 969— 970, 44 N.W.2d 49, 58-

1974Boone Biblical College v. Forrest, 223 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 275 N.W. 132, 135 , 116 A.L.R. 67 has this statement: “* * * The rule seems to be well established in most jurisdictions, including our own, that a party, who desires to set up a prior adjudication as a bar to a claim made by an opposing party, must properly plead such adjudication before evidence will be admissible in regard to it. * * * [citing authorities].” See also Lambert v. Rice, 143 Iowa 70, 74 , 120 N.W. 96, 97 ; Perry v. Reeder, 235 Iowa 532, 535 , 17 N.W.2d 98, 100 ; State v. Nichols, 241 Iowa 952 , 969— 970, 44 N.W.2d 49, 58-

1974Boone Biblical College v. Forrest, 223 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 275 N.W. 132, 135 , 116 A.L.R. 67 has this statement: “* * * The rule seems to be well established in most jurisdictions, including our own, that a party, who desires to set up a prior adjudication as a bar to a claim made by an opposing party, must properly plead such adjudication before evidence will be admissible in regard to it. * * * [citing authorities].” See also Lambert v. Rice, 143 Iowa 70, 74 , 120 N.W. 96, 97 ; Perry v. Reeder, 235 Iowa 532, 535 , 17 N.W.2d 98, 100 ; State v. Nichols, 241 Iowa 952 , 969— 970, 44 N.W.2d 49, 58-

1974Boone Biblical College v. Forrest, 223 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 275 N.W. 132, 135 , 116 A.L.R. 67 has this statement: “* * * The rule seems to be well established in most jurisdictions, including our own, that a party, who desires to set up a prior adjudication as a bar to a claim made by an opposing party, must properly plead such adjudication before evidence will be admissible in regard to it. * * * [citing authorities].” See also Lambert v. Rice, 143 Iowa 70, 74 , 120 N.W. 96, 97 ; Perry v. Reeder, 235 Iowa 532, 535 , 17 N.W.2d 98, 100 ; State v. Nichols, 241 Iowa 952 , 969— 970, 44 N.W.2d 49, 58-

1974Boone Biblical College v. Forrest, 223 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 275 N.W. 132, 135 , 116 A.L.R. 67 has this statement: “* * * The rule seems to be well established in most jurisdictions, including our own, that a party, who desires to set up a prior adjudication as a bar to a claim made by an opposing party, must properly plead such adjudication before evidence will be admissible in regard to it. * * * [citing authorities].” See also Lambert v. Rice, 143 Iowa 70, 74 , 120 N.W. 96, 97 ; Perry v. Reeder, 235 Iowa 532, 535 , 17 N.W.2d 98, 100 ; State v. Nichols, 241 Iowa 952 , 969— 970, 44 N.W.2d 49, 58-

1974Boone Biblical College v. Forrest, 223 Iowa 1260, 1264 , 275 N.W. 132, 135 , 116 A.L.R. 67 has this statement: “* * * The rule seems to be well established in most jurisdictions, including our own, that a party, who desires to set up a prior adjudication as a bar to a claim made by an opposing party, must properly plead such adjudication before evidence will be admissible in regard to it. * * * [citing authorities].” See also Lambert v. Rice, 143 Iowa 70, 74 , 120 N.W. 96, 97 ; Perry v. Reeder, 235 Iowa 532, 535 , 17 N.W.2d 98, 100 ; State v. Nichols, 241 Iowa 952 , 969— 970, 44 N.W.2d 49, 58-

1973In Hamilton v. Henderson, 211 Iowa 29 , 230 N.W. 347 we stated the controlling issue of that appeal to be as follows: “ * * * Did (mortgagors), by obtaining judgment on the notes in an action at law, waive the lien of the chattel mortgage held by them, or is the judgment rendered in the action at law an adjudication and bar of any right of (lenders), to now, in an action in equity, seek the enforcement of their chattel mortgage lien upon the property covered thereby? * * Citing earlier Iowa authorities we held “(t)he judgment did not merge the lien of the mortgage, but was simply a means of ef

1973In Hamilton v. Henderson, 211 Iowa 29 , 230 N.W. 347 we stated the controlling issue of that appeal to be as follows: “ * * * Did (mortgagors), by obtaining judgment on the notes in an action at law, waive the lien of the chattel mortgage held by them, or is the judgment rendered in the action at law an adjudication and bar of any right of (lenders), to now, in an action in equity, seek the enforcement of their chattel mortgage lien upon the property covered thereby? * * Citing earlier Iowa authorities we held “(t)he judgment did not merge the lien of the mortgage, but was simply a means of ef

1973In Hamilton v. Henderson, 211 Iowa 29 , 230 N.W. 347 we stated the controlling issue of that appeal to be as follows: “ * * * Did (mortgagors), by obtaining judgment on the notes in an action at law, waive the lien of the chattel mortgage held by them, or is the judgment rendered in the action at law an adjudication and bar of any right of (lenders), to now, in an action in equity, seek the enforcement of their chattel mortgage lien upon the property covered thereby? * * Citing earlier Iowa authorities we held “(t)he judgment did not merge the lien of the mortgage, but was simply a means of ef

1965Ranslow v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., supra, 243 Iowa 731, 734 , 53 N.W.2d 247, 248 .

1965Ranslow v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., supra, 243 Iowa 731, 734 , 53 N.W.2d 247, 248 .

1941Appellee cites United States v. Allsbury, 71 U. S. 186 , 18 L.

1941Appellee cites United States v. Allsbury, 71 U. S. 186 , 18 L.

1937J., 1055; Johnson v. Farmers Insurance Company, 184 Iowa 630 , 168 N. W. 264 ; Cedar County v. Moore, 173 Iowa 286 , 155 N. W. 277 ; Majestic Co. v. Ira D.

1937J., 1055; Johnson v. Farmers Insurance Company, 184 Iowa 630 , 168 N. W. 264 ; Cedar County v. Moore, 173 Iowa 286 , 155 N. W. 277 ; Majestic Co. v. Ira D.

1930The question is not an open one in this state, but has been settled by many decisions of this court, as the following citations will show: State for use of School Fund v. Lake, 17 Iowa 215 ; Potter v. Harvey, 30 Iowa 502 ; Morrison v. Morrison, 38 Iowa 73 ; Matthews v. Davis, 61 Iowa 225 ; Freeburg v. Eksell, 123 Iowa 464 ; Gilman v. Heitman, 137 Iowa 336 ; Equitable Life Ins.

1930The question is not an open one in this state, but has been settled by many decisions of this court, as the following citations will show: State for use of School Fund v. Lake, 17 Iowa 215 ; Potter v. Harvey, 30 Iowa 502 ; Morrison v. Morrison, 38 Iowa 73 ; Matthews v. Davis, 61 Iowa 225 ; Freeburg v. Eksell, 123 Iowa 464 ; Gilman v. Heitman, 137 Iowa 336 ; Equitable Life Ins.

1930The question is not an open one in this state, but has been settled by many decisions of this court, as the following citations will show: State for use of School Fund v. Lake, 17 Iowa 215 ; Potter v. Harvey, 30 Iowa 502 ; Morrison v. Morrison, 38 Iowa 73 ; Matthews v. Davis, 61 Iowa 225 ; Freeburg v. Eksell, 123 Iowa 464 ; Gilman v. Heitman, 137 Iowa 336 ; Equitable Life Ins.

1930The question is not an open one in this state, but has been settled by many decisions of this court, as the following citations will show: State for use of School Fund v. Lake, 17 Iowa 215 ; Potter v. Harvey, 30 Iowa 502 ; Morrison v. Morrison, 38 Iowa 73 ; Matthews v. Davis, 61 Iowa 225 ; Freeburg v. Eksell, 123 Iowa 464 ; Gilman v. Heitman, 137 Iowa 336 ; Equitable Life Ins.

1930The question is not an open one in this state, but has been settled by many decisions of this court, as the following citations will show: State for use of School Fund v. Lake, 17 Iowa 215 ; Potter v. Harvey, 30 Iowa 502 ; Morrison v. Morrison, 38 Iowa 73 ; Matthews v. Davis, 61 Iowa 225 ; Freeburg v. Eksell, 123 Iowa 464 ; Gilman v. Heitman, 137 Iowa 336 ; Equitable Life Ins.

1930The question is not an open one in this state, but has been settled by many decisions of this court, as the following citations will show: State for use of School Fund v. Lake, 17 Iowa 215 ; Potter v. Harvey, 30 Iowa 502 ; Morrison v. Morrison, 38 Iowa 73 ; Matthews v. Davis, 61 Iowa 225 ; Freeburg v. Eksell, 123 Iowa 464 ; Gilman v. Heitman, 137 Iowa 336 ; Equitable Life Ins.