ease bar in Iowa

1959Knutson v. Lurie, supra, 217 Iowa 192, 195 , 251 N.W. 147, 149 , points to the rule that one who rides in an automobile “for the definite and tangible benefit of the owner or operator” is not a guest and recovery for injuries suffered by such rider may be based upon the negligence of the operator.

1959Knutson v. Lurie, supra, 217 Iowa 192, 195 , 251 N.W. 147, 149 , points to the rule that one who rides in an automobile “for the definite and tangible benefit of the owner or operator” is not a guest and recovery for injuries suffered by such rider may be based upon the negligence of the operator.

1941In State v. Ferguson, 222 Iowa 1148 , 270 N. W. 874 , and State v. De Koning, 223 Iowa 951 , 274 N. W. 25 , relied upon by appellant, the defendant requested and the court refused to give either the so-called stock instruction given in substance in the ease at bar or the additional instruction refused in the case at b.ar.

1941In State v. Ferguson, 222 Iowa 1148 , 270 N. W. 874 , and State v. De Koning, 223 Iowa 951 , 274 N. W. 25 , relied upon by appellant, the defendant requested and the court refused to give either the so-called stock instruction given in substance in the ease at bar or the additional instruction refused in the case at b.ar.

2006A. Law of the Case The Bahls contend the law of the ease doctrine prevents Asbury from “argu[ing] that the type of homes proposed in the Bahls’ application (mobile homes) are not ‘manufactured homes’ within the meaning of the City’s ordinance or Chapter 414.” They base this contention on the fact the parties in Bahl I did “not dispute that the development proposed by the Bahls is a land-leased community of manufactured housing within the meaning of chapter 414.” Bahl I, 656 N.W.2d at 337 n. 1.

1998The second Iowa case cited by the majority in support of its distinction concerning “inconsistency” is City of Iowa City v. Westinghouse Learning Corp., 264 N.W.2d 771 (Iowa 1978), another due process case.

1995In the ease at bar, Lawrence is “impermis-sibly trying to recover for [libel] without proving all the elements of [libel].” Jorgensen, 905 F.2d at 520 .

1985Furthermore, though the Iowa Supreme Court remanded the Shontz case, the court also found that “no evidence was presented to the hearing officer to show that claimant’s illness was ‘attributable to his employer’ within the meaning of § 96.5(1), and it is obvious that he did not come within the exception in § 96.-5(l)(d).” Shontz, 248 N.W.2d at 91 .

1967Iowa (Judge Graven), 77 F. Supp. 22, 38 , contains an exhaustive review of our statutory rules of the road and Iowa decisions bearing thereon.

1967Co. v. State, 183 Misc. 1080 , 52 N.Y.S.2d 186 , are almost on all fours with those in the ease at bar.

1967Co. v. State, 183 Misc. 1080 , 52 N.Y.S.2d 186 , are almost on all fours with those in the ease at bar.

1967At page 1083, 183 Misc., page 188, 52 N.Y.S.2d, the court states: “It is well established that the State is liable in damages for its failure to deliver a contract site and provide a contractor with reasonable opportunity to perform his contract without interference [citing authorities] and that a contractor may recover for the fair and reasonable rental value of machinery held on the site during period of delay.” Another ease with similar facts, Anders v. State, 42 Misc.2d 276 , 248 N.Y.S.2d 4 , holds the rental value of idle equipment is a proper element of damages.

1967At page 1083, 183 Misc., page 188, 52 N.Y.S.2d, the court states: “It is well established that the State is liable in damages for its failure to deliver a contract site and provide a contractor with reasonable opportunity to perform his contract without interference [citing authorities] and that a contractor may recover for the fair and reasonable rental value of machinery held on the site during period of delay.” Another ease with similar facts, Anders v. State, 42 Misc.2d 276 , 248 N.Y.S.2d 4 , holds the rental value of idle equipment is a proper element of damages.

1967Defendant cites Skaff v. City of Sioux City, 255 Iowa 49 , 120 N.W.2d 439 , which holds expense of moving a stock of merchandise is not recoverable as a separate dollar-and-cent item of damage in a condemnation proceeding.

1967Defendant cites Skaff v. City of Sioux City, 255 Iowa 49 , 120 N.W.2d 439 , which holds expense of moving a stock of merchandise is not recoverable as a separate dollar-and-cent item of damage in a condemnation proceeding.

1967Bankers Trust case, supra, and citations; In re Estate of Stonebrook, 258 Iowa 1062, 1073 , 141 N.W.2d 531, 537 .” In the ease at bar testator spoke in writing.

1967Bankers Trust case, supra, and citations; In re Estate of Stonebrook, 258 Iowa 1062, 1073 , 141 N.W.2d 531, 537 .” In the ease at bar testator spoke in writing.

1966This may, under circumstances, be equivalent to an express agreement to assign the patent for his invention to his employer, but that this cannot be predicated of the general relation of employer and employee is manifest from the numerous cases that have been cited, as well as from the Solomons Case itself, and in the ease at bar there is a specific finding of fact by the court below, that no express contract is proven, and none is to be inferred from the facts in the case.” It must be kept in mind plaintiff had no custom, practice nor rules requiring employees to assign to it any inventive id

1965Eagen v. K & A Truck Lines, Inc., 254 Iowa 914, 916 , 119 N.W.2d 805 . *1026 In the ease at bar there is no evidence to support this burden.

1965Eagen v. K & A Truck Lines, Inc., 254 Iowa 914, 916 , 119 N.W.2d 805 . *1026 In the ease at bar there is no evidence to support this burden.

1965Judge Mantz in writing the opinion for this court quoted from the case of Fitter v. Iowa Telephone Co., 143 Iowa 689, 693 , 121 N.W. 48 , as follows: “Proximate cause and contributory negligence are questions for the jury, save in very exceptional cases where the facts are so clear and undisputed, and the relation of cause and effect so apparent to evéry' candid mind, that but one conclusion may be fairly drawn therefrom.” The case of Short v. Powell, 228 Iowa 333, 335 , 291 N.W. 406 , was an intersection collision ease with some similarities to the ease at bar.

1965Judge Mantz in writing the opinion for this court quoted from the case of Fitter v. Iowa Telephone Co., 143 Iowa 689, 693 , 121 N.W. 48 , as follows: “Proximate cause and contributory negligence are questions for the jury, save in very exceptional cases where the facts are so clear and undisputed, and the relation of cause and effect so apparent to evéry' candid mind, that but one conclusion may be fairly drawn therefrom.” The case of Short v. Powell, 228 Iowa 333, 335 , 291 N.W. 406 , was an intersection collision ease with some similarities to the ease at bar.

1965In fairness to the trial court it should be noted that the ease at bar was tried and decided before our pronouncement in Hand v. Hand, 257 Iowa 643 , 133 N.W.2d 63 .

1965In fairness to the trial court it should be noted that the ease at bar was tried and decided before our pronouncement in Hand v. Hand, 257 Iowa 643 , 133 N.W.2d 63 .

1965“The same reasoning applies in warranty as in negligence eases.” In Hahn v. Ford Motor Co., 256 Iowa 27, 33 , 126 N.W.2d 350, 354 , we said: “Without intending to indicate in anyway the extent to which the implied warranty theory will be applied to persons in the distributive chain beyond the facts of the Anderson-Weber case, we hold that there is no implied warranty of fitness from the manufacturer or dealer to members of the general public.” This holding does not prevent recovery by plaintiff in the ease at bar.

1965“The same reasoning applies in warranty as in negligence eases.” In Hahn v. Ford Motor Co., 256 Iowa 27, 33 , 126 N.W.2d 350, 354 , we said: “Without intending to indicate in anyway the extent to which the implied warranty theory will be applied to persons in the distributive chain beyond the facts of the Anderson-Weber case, we hold that there is no implied warranty of fitness from the manufacturer or dealer to members of the general public.” This holding does not prevent recovery by plaintiff in the ease at bar.

1965Judge Mantz in writing the opinion for this court quoted from the case of Fitter v. Iowa Telephone Co., 143 Iowa 689, 693 , 121 N.W. 48 , as follows: “Proximate cause and contributory negligence are questions for the jury, save in very exceptional cases where the facts are so clear and undisputed, and the relation of cause and effect so apparent to evéry' candid mind, that but one conclusion may be fairly drawn therefrom.” The case of Short v. Powell, 228 Iowa 333, 335 , 291 N.W. 406 , was an intersection collision ease with some similarities to the ease at bar.

1965Judge Mantz in writing the opinion for this court quoted from the case of Fitter v. Iowa Telephone Co., 143 Iowa 689, 693 , 121 N.W. 48 , as follows: “Proximate cause and contributory negligence are questions for the jury, save in very exceptional cases where the facts are so clear and undisputed, and the relation of cause and effect so apparent to evéry' candid mind, that but one conclusion may be fairly drawn therefrom.” The case of Short v. Powell, 228 Iowa 333, 335 , 291 N.W. 406 , was an intersection collision ease with some similarities to the ease at bar.

1964Stiefel v. Wandro, 246 Iowa 807 , 68 N.W.2d 53 ; Miller v. McCoy Truck Lines, Inc., 243 Iowa 483 , 52 N.W.2d 62 ; Jesse v. Werner & Werner Co., 248 Iowa 1002 , 82 N.W.2d 82 ; Stafford v. Gowing, 236 Iowa 171 , 18 N.W.2d 156 .

1964Stiefel v. Wandro, 246 Iowa 807 , 68 N.W.2d 53 ; Miller v. McCoy Truck Lines, Inc., 243 Iowa 483 , 52 N.W.2d 62 ; Jesse v. Werner & Werner Co., 248 Iowa 1002 , 82 N.W.2d 82 ; Stafford v. Gowing, 236 Iowa 171 , 18 N.W.2d 156 .

1964Stiefel v. Wandro, 246 Iowa 807 , 68 N.W.2d 53 ; Miller v. McCoy Truck Lines, Inc., 243 Iowa 483 , 52 N.W.2d 62 ; Jesse v. Werner & Werner Co., 248 Iowa 1002 , 82 N.W.2d 82 ; Stafford v. Gowing, 236 Iowa 171 , 18 N.W.2d 156 .

1964Stiefel v. Wandro, 246 Iowa 807 , 68 N.W.2d 53 ; Miller v. McCoy Truck Lines, Inc., 243 Iowa 483 , 52 N.W.2d 62 ; Jesse v. Werner & Werner Co., 248 Iowa 1002 , 82 N.W.2d 82 ; Stafford v. Gowing, 236 Iowa 171 , 18 N.W.2d 156 .

1964Stiefel v. Wandro, 246 Iowa 807 , 68 N.W.2d 53 ; Miller v. McCoy Truck Lines, Inc., 243 Iowa 483 , 52 N.W.2d 62 ; Jesse v. Werner & Werner Co., 248 Iowa 1002 , 82 N.W.2d 82 ; Stafford v. Gowing, 236 Iowa 171 , 18 N.W.2d 156 .

1964Stiefel v. Wandro, 246 Iowa 807 , 68 N.W.2d 53 ; Miller v. McCoy Truck Lines, Inc., 243 Iowa 483 , 52 N.W.2d 62 ; Jesse v. Werner & Werner Co., 248 Iowa 1002 , 82 N.W.2d 82 ; Stafford v. Gowing, 236 Iowa 171 , 18 N.W.2d 156 .

1964Stiefel v. Wandro, 246 Iowa 807 , 68 N.W.2d 53 ; Miller v. McCoy Truck Lines, Inc., 243 Iowa 483 , 52 N.W.2d 62 ; Jesse v. Werner & Werner Co., 248 Iowa 1002 , 82 N.W.2d 82 ; Stafford v. Gowing, 236 Iowa 171 , 18 N.W.2d 156 .

1964Stiefel v. Wandro, 246 Iowa 807 , 68 N.W.2d 53 ; Miller v. McCoy Truck Lines, Inc., 243 Iowa 483 , 52 N.W.2d 62 ; Jesse v. Werner & Werner Co., 248 Iowa 1002 , 82 N.W.2d 82 ; Stafford v. Gowing, 236 Iowa 171 , 18 N.W.2d 156 .

1963The installation [of the floor mat] was not only unusual, but unnecessary.” The floor mat in the entrance to the Flynn building, involved in Chenoweth v. Flynn, 251 Iowa 11, 14 , 99 N.W.2d 310, 312 , was also % inch thick and was 16 feet long.

1963The installation [of the floor mat] was not only unusual, but unnecessary.” The floor mat in the entrance to the Flynn building, involved in Chenoweth v. Flynn, 251 Iowa 11, 14 , 99 N.W.2d 310, 312 , was also % inch thick and was 16 feet long.

1963In Sheker v. Jensen, 241 Iowa 583, 589 , 41 N.W.2d 679 , we said: “It is the rule in this state that an agreement of jurors to each vote the amount of damages to be allowed and to divide the sum total by twelve, with no agreement to be bound by the result, followed by further fair and open discussion and the *967 return of the verdict accordingly, does not constitute a quotient verdict.” It is clear that in the ease at bar there was no quotient verdict.

1963In Sheker v. Jensen, 241 Iowa 583, 589 , 41 N.W.2d 679 , we said: “It is the rule in this state that an agreement of jurors to each vote the amount of damages to be allowed and to divide the sum total by twelve, with no agreement to be bound by the result, followed by further fair and open discussion and the *967 return of the verdict accordingly, does not constitute a quotient verdict.” It is clear that in the ease at bar there was no quotient verdict.

1962State v. Bradley, 231 Iowa 1112, 1116 , 3 N.W.2d 133, 135 ; State v. Schultz, 242 Iowa 1328 , 50 N.W.2d 9 .

1962State v. Bradley, 231 Iowa 1112, 1116 , 3 N.W.2d 133, 135 ; State v. Schultz, 242 Iowa 1328 , 50 N.W.2d 9 .