statements principle in Iowa

2022The district court admitted the statements under rule 5.803(3), which provides an exception to the hearsay rule for “[a] statement of the declarant’s then- existing state of mind (such as motive, intent, or plan) or emotional, sensory, or physical condition (such as mental feeling, pain, or bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed.” “The admission of such evidence under this exception is dependent upon the relevancy of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition.” Newell, 710 N.W.2d at

2022Id. at 163 .

2014Petersen, 570 N.W.2d at 466 .

1976The trial court relied on the following statements of principle in Shahan v. Bayer Vehicle Co., 179 Iowa 923, 929-930 , 162 N.W. 221 , 223 (1917): “The rule seems to be well recognized that, where one makes demand upon another for the discharge of an unliquidated demand, and the liability of the alleged debtor is in good faith disputed, or the amount of the liability is disputed, the tender and acceptance of a less sum than might upon a full investigation' be found due, discharges the debt in full.

1975The foregoing statements of principle find support in Betz v. Swanson, 200 Iowa 824, 826 , 205 N.W. 507 , 509 and Akkerman v. Gersema, 260 Iowa at 438 , 149 N.W.2d at 859-860 .

1975The foregoing statements of principle find support in Betz v. Swanson, 200 Iowa 824, 826 , 205 N.W. 507 , 509 and Akkerman v. Gersema, 260 Iowa at 438 , 149 N.W.2d at 859-860 .

1975The foregoing statements of principle find support in Betz v. Swanson, 200 Iowa 824, 826 , 205 N.W. 507 , 509 and Akkerman v. Gersema, 260 Iowa at 438 , 149 N.W.2d at 859-860 .

1975The foregoing statements of principle find support in Betz v. Swanson, 200 Iowa 824, 826 , 205 N.W. 507 , 509 and Akkerman v. Gersema, 260 Iowa at 438 , 149 N.W.2d at 859-860 .

1975The following statements of principle made in International Shoe Company v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316-319 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158-160 , 90 L.Ed. 95, 102-104 , are quoted with approval in Rath, 181 N.W.2d at 187 -188: “ * * * [D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ * * * [citing authorities]. (i * ⅝ * “ * * * Whether due proces

1975The following statements of principle made in International Shoe Company v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316-319 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158-160 , 90 L.Ed. 95, 102-104 , are quoted with approval in Rath, 181 N.W.2d at 187 -188: “ * * * [D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ * * * [citing authorities]. (i * ⅝ * “ * * * Whether due proces

1975Co. v. Bluemound Oil Co., 275 Wis. 410 , 82 N.W.2d 205, 206 , said: “The majority view in this country is that the mere fact that a corporation is organized to take over a business formerly conducted by a firm or individual is not of itself sufficient to render it liable for a debt or liability incurred by such firm or individual in conducting such business prior to incorporation.” However, the above statements of principle are not absolute in their application to all factual settings.

1975Co. v. Bluemound Oil Co., 275 Wis. 410 , 82 N.W.2d 205, 206 , said: “The majority view in this country is that the mere fact that a corporation is organized to take over a business formerly conducted by a firm or individual is not of itself sufficient to render it liable for a debt or liability incurred by such firm or individual in conducting such business prior to incorporation.” However, the above statements of principle are not absolute in their application to all factual settings.

1975The following statements of principle made in International Shoe Company v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316-319 , 66 S.Ct. 154, 158-160 , 90 L.Ed. 95, 102-104 , are quoted with approval in Rath, 181 N.W.2d at 187 -188: “ * * * [D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ * * * [citing authorities]. (i * ⅝ * “ * * * Whether due proces

1975In the Luedecke decision is this statement: “ * * * In order to render the purchasing company personally liable for the debts of the selling corporation, it must appear that (a) there be an agreement to assume such debts; (b) the circumstances surrounding the transaction must warrant a finding that there was a consolidation of the two corporations; or (c) that the purchasing corporation was a mere continuation of the selling corporation; or (d) that the transaction was fraudulent in fact. * * * [citing authorities].” 140 Iowa at 226 , 118 N.W. at 457 .

1975In the Luedecke decision is this statement: “ * * * In order to render the purchasing company personally liable for the debts of the selling corporation, it must appear that (a) there be an agreement to assume such debts; (b) the circumstances surrounding the transaction must warrant a finding that there was a consolidation of the two corporations; or (c) that the purchasing corporation was a mere continuation of the selling corporation; or (d) that the transaction was fraudulent in fact. * * * [citing authorities].” 140 Iowa at 226 , 118 N.W. at 457 .

1974State v. Thompson’s School, 226 Iowa 556, 561 , 285 N.W. 133 , 135 has this quote: “ ‘The right thus granted is, of course, subject to the police power of the state to enact laws essential to the public safety, •health, or morals; but, to justify a state in exercising such authority, it must appear that the interest of the public requires such interposition, and that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive to individuals.’ ” In view of the foregoing statements of principle the problem is whether the statute which prevents cosmetologist

1974State v. Thompson’s School, 226 Iowa 556, 561 , 285 N.W. 133 , 135 has this quote: “ ‘The right thus granted is, of course, subject to the police power of the state to enact laws essential to the public safety, •health, or morals; but, to justify a state in exercising such authority, it must appear that the interest of the public requires such interposition, and that the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive to individuals.’ ” In view of the foregoing statements of principle the problem is whether the statute which prevents cosmetologist

1945We have held such a notice statute is to be liberally construed “to the end that parties having meritorious claims shall not be cut off by a mere technicality as to the form of notice to be required. ’ ’ Buchmeier v. Davenport, 138 Iowa 623, 625 , 116 N. W. 695 .

1945We have held such a notice statute is to be liberally construed “to the end that parties having meritorious claims shall not be cut off by a mere technicality as to the form of notice to be required. ’ ’ Buchmeier v. Davenport, 138 Iowa 623, 625 , 116 N. W. 695 .

1930Ryan Bros. v. Rate, 203 Iowa 1253 ; Miller v. Swartzlender & Holman, 192 Iowa 153 ; Blakely v. Cabelka, 207 Iowa 959 ; Ashman v. City of Des Moines, 209 Iowa 1247 ; Blomgren v. City of Ottumwa, 209 Iowa 9 ; Bodholdt v. Townsend, 208 Iowa 1350 ; Reynolds & Heitsman v. Henry, 193 Iowa 164 ; Fisher v. McCarty, 197 Iowa 369 ; Harrington v. Southern Sur.

1930Ryan Bros. v. Rate, 203 Iowa 1253 ; Miller v. Swartzlender & Holman, 192 Iowa 153 ; Blakely v. Cabelka, 207 Iowa 959 ; Ashman v. City of Des Moines, 209 Iowa 1247 ; Blomgren v. City of Ottumwa, 209 Iowa 9 ; Bodholdt v. Townsend, 208 Iowa 1350 ; Reynolds & Heitsman v. Henry, 193 Iowa 164 ; Fisher v. McCarty, 197 Iowa 369 ; Harrington v. Southern Sur.

1930Ryan Bros. v. Rate, 203 Iowa 1253 ; Miller v. Swartzlender & Holman, 192 Iowa 153 ; Blakely v. Cabelka, 207 Iowa 959 ; Ashman v. City of Des Moines, 209 Iowa 1247 ; Blomgren v. City of Ottumwa, 209 Iowa 9 ; Bodholdt v. Townsend, 208 Iowa 1350 ; Reynolds & Heitsman v. Henry, 193 Iowa 164 ; Fisher v. McCarty, 197 Iowa 369 ; Harrington v. Southern Sur.

1930Ryan Bros. v. Rate, 203 Iowa 1253 ; Miller v. Swartzlender & Holman, 192 Iowa 153 ; Blakely v. Cabelka, 207 Iowa 959 ; Ashman v. City of Des Moines, 209 Iowa 1247 ; Blomgren v. City of Ottumwa, 209 Iowa 9 ; Bodholdt v. Townsend, 208 Iowa 1350 ; Reynolds & Heitsman v. Henry, 193 Iowa 164 ; Fisher v. McCarty, 197 Iowa 369 ; Harrington v. Southern Sur.

1930Ryan Bros. v. Rate, 203 Iowa 1253 ; Miller v. Swartzlender & Holman, 192 Iowa 153 ; Blakely v. Cabelka, 207 Iowa 959 ; Ashman v. City of Des Moines, 209 Iowa 1247 ; Blomgren v. City of Ottumwa, 209 Iowa 9 ; Bodholdt v. Townsend, 208 Iowa 1350 ; Reynolds & Heitsman v. Henry, 193 Iowa 164 ; Fisher v. McCarty, 197 Iowa 369 ; Harrington v. Southern Sur.

1930See In re Estate of Mott, 200 Iowa 948 ; Morrow v. Downing, 210 Iowa 1195 ; Cary-Platt v. Iowa Elec.

1930Ryan Bros. v. Rate, 203 Iowa 1253 ; Miller v. Swartzlender & Holman, 192 Iowa 153 ; Blakely v. Cabelka, 207 Iowa 959 ; Ashman v. City of Des Moines, 209 Iowa 1247 ; Blomgren v. City of Ottumwa, 209 Iowa 9 ; Bodholdt v. Townsend, 208 Iowa 1350 ; Reynolds & Heitsman v. Henry, 193 Iowa 164 ; Fisher v. McCarty, 197 Iowa 369 ; Harrington v. Southern Sur.

1930Ryan Bros. v. Rate, 203 Iowa 1253 ; Miller v. Swartzlender & Holman, 192 Iowa 153 ; Blakely v. Cabelka, 207 Iowa 959 ; Ashman v. City of Des Moines, 209 Iowa 1247 ; Blomgren v. City of Ottumwa, 209 Iowa 9 ; Bodholdt v. Townsend, 208 Iowa 1350 ; Reynolds & Heitsman v. Henry, 193 Iowa 164 ; Fisher v. McCarty, 197 Iowa 369 ; Harrington v. Southern Sur.

1930Ryan Bros. v. Rate, 203 Iowa 1253 ; Miller v. Swartzlender & Holman, 192 Iowa 153 ; Blakely v. Cabelka, 207 Iowa 959 ; Ashman v. City of Des Moines, 209 Iowa 1247 ; Blomgren v. City of Ottumwa, 209 Iowa 9 ; Bodholdt v. Townsend, 208 Iowa 1350 ; Reynolds & Heitsman v. Henry, 193 Iowa 164 ; Fisher v. McCarty, 197 Iowa 369 ; Harrington v. Southern Sur.