11 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1903–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Trust of Rothrockgreen2 sentences2007The question presented is whether the cy pres doctrine applies to allow the modification the City requests. 9 Never before have we specifically stated our standard of review in deciding such questions. 5 See, e.g., In re Trust of Rothrock, 452 N.W.2d 403 (Iowa 1990) (deciding whether the cy pres doctrine should apply when the trial court determined it did); Simmons v. Parsons Coll., 256 N.W.2d 225 (Iowa 1977) (deciding whether the cy pres doctrine should apply when the trial court determined it did not). 2007Now the doctrine is not only widely accepted by our courts, see, e.g., Rothrock, 452 N.W.2d at 406 (holding the trial court properly applied the common law doctrine of cy pres), but our legislature has codified the doctrine into law, see 1999 Iowa Acts ch. 125, § 86 (codified at Iowa Code § 633.5102 (2001), and creating a new section entitled “Application of cy- pres”); Begleiter, Code We Trust, 49 Drake L. | 3 | 3 |
Lupton v. Leander Clark Collegegreen2 sentences2007See Lupton v. Leander Clark Coll., 194 Iowa 1008, 1021 , 187 N.W. 496 , 502 (1922) (Faville, J., dissenting) (“I do not think the cy pres doctrine has any application whatever to the facts in this case. 2007See Filkins v. Severin, 127 Iowa 738, 738 , 104 N.W. 346, 346 (1905) (“[T]he cy pres doctrine is not recognized in this state . . . .”); Lupton v. Leander Clark Coll., 194 Iowa 1008, 1023 , 187 N.W. 496 , 502 (1922) (Faville, J., dissenting) (“I do not care to enter into the discussion of the interesting question as to how far we have recognized the application of the cy pres doctrine in this state.”); see also Bogert, Trusts & Trustees § 433, at 148– 49 (explaining why American courts were reluctant to recognize cy pres). | 3 | 3 |
Obermeyer v. Bank of America, N.A.green2 sentences2007See, e.g., Obermeyer v. Bank of Am., N.A., 140 S.W.3d 18, 24 (Mo.2004); E. 2007See, e.g., Obermeyer v. Bank of Am., N.A., 140 S.W.3d 18, 24 (Mo. 2004); E. | 2 | 2 |
Sherman v. Richmond Hose Co. No. 2green2 sentences2007See Burr v. Brooks, 75 Ill.App.3d 80 , 30 Ill.Dec. 744 , 393 N.E.2d 1091 , 1097-98 (1979) (“A trial court is allowed considerable discretion in making a Cy pres application and a reviewing court will step in only if the discretion is abused.”); Sherman v. Richmond Hose Co. No. 2, 230 N.Y. 462 , 130 N.E. 613, 616 (1921) (“The exercise of the cy pres doctrine always involves a large measure of discretion. 2007App. Ct. 1979) (“A trial court is allowed considerable discretion in making a Cy pres application and a reviewing court will step in only if the discretion is abused.”); Sherman v. Richmond Hose Co. No. 2, 130 N.E. 613, 616 (N.Y. 1921) (“The exercise of the cy pres doctrine always involves a large measure of discretion. | 2 | 2 |
President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Jewettgreen2 sentences2007The rule against cy pres in such a case has been justified because permitting modification would allow the trustee or donee to “disregard the express terms of the grant or devise.” President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. v. Jewett, 11 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir.1925). 2007The rule against cy pres in such a case has been justified because permitting modification would allow the trustee or donee to “disregard the express terms of the grant or devise.” President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. v. Jewett, 11 F.2d 119, 122 (6th Cir. 1925). | 2 | 2 |
Connecticut College v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Conn. Coll. v. United States, 276 F.2d 491, 497-98 (D.C.Cir.1960) (“Nor may a trustee by his own act produce changed conditions which frustrate the donor’s intention and still claim the gift through the application of the cy pres doctrine.”). 2007See, e.g., Conn. Coll. v. United States, 276 F.2d 491 , 497–98 (D.C. | 2 | 2 |
Filkins v. Severngreen2 sentences2007See Filkins v. Severin, 127 Iowa 738, 738 , 104 N.W. 346, 346 (1905) (“[T]he cy pres doctrine is not recognized in this state . . . .”); Lupton v. Leander Clark Coll., 194 Iowa 1008, 1023 , 187 N.W. 496 , 502 (1922) (Faville, J., dissenting) (“I do not care to enter into the discussion of the interesting question as to how far we have recognized the application of the cy pres doctrine in this state.”); see also Bogert, Trusts & Trustees § 433, at 148– 49 (explaining why American courts were reluctant to recognize cy pres). 2007See Filkins v. Severin, 127 Iowa 738, 738 , 104 N.W. 346, 346 (1905) (“[T]he cy pres doctrine is not recognized in this state . . . .”); Lupton v. Leander Clark Coll., 194 Iowa 1008, 1023 , 187 N.W. 496 , 502 (1922) (Faville, J., dissenting) (“I do not care to enter into the discussion of the interesting question as to how far we have recognized the application of the cy pres doctrine in this state.”); see also Bogert, Trusts & Trustees § 433, at 148– 49 (explaining why American courts were reluctant to recognize cy pres). | 2 | 2 |
Simmons v. Parsons Collegegreen2 sentences2007Never before have we specifically stated our standard of review in deciding such questions. 5 See, e.g., In re Trust of Rothrock, 452 N.W.2d 403 (Iowa 1990) (deciding whether the cy pres doctrine should apply when the trial court determined it did); Simmons v. Parsons Coll, 256 N.W.2d 225 (Iowa 1977) (deciding whether the cy pres doctrine should apply when the trial court determined it did not). 2007The question presented is whether the cy pres doctrine applies to allow the modification the City requests. 9 Never before have we specifically stated our standard of review in deciding such questions. 5 See, e.g., In re Trust of Rothrock, 452 N.W.2d 403 (Iowa 1990) (deciding whether the cy pres doctrine should apply when the trial court determined it did); Simmons v. Parsons Coll., 256 N.W.2d 225 (Iowa 1977) (deciding whether the cy pres doctrine should apply when the trial court determined it did not). | 1 | 3 |
Lillian Hayden v. Atochem North America, Inc.green1 sentence2017See, e.g., Klier, 658 F.3d at 473 (“When .modern, large-scale class actions are resolved via settlement, money often remains in the settlement fund even after initial distributions to class members have been made because some class members either cannot be located or decline to file a claim. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 779482green2 sentences2017(Airline II), 307 F.3d 679, 682 (8th Cir. 2002)). 2017“The cy pres doctrine allows a court to modify a trust to best carry out the testator’s intent — that is, 'to effectuate the ‘next be'st’ use of the gift.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Masters v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc.green2 sentences2017"In the context of class action settlements, a court may' employ the cy pres doctrine to ‘put the unclaimed fund to its next best compensation use, e.g., for the aggregate, indirect, prospective benefit of the class.’ ” Id.(quoting Masters v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., 473 F.3d 423, 436 (2d Cir. 2007)). 2017"In the context of class action settlements, a court may' employ the cy pres doctrine to ‘put the unclaimed fund to its next best compensation use, e.g., for the aggregate, indirect, prospective benefit of the class.’ ” Id.(quoting Masters v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., 473 F.3d 423, 436 (2d Cir. 2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Burr v. Brooksgreen1 sentence2007See Burr v. Brooks, 75 Ill.App.3d 80 , 30 Ill.Dec. 744 , 393 N.E.2d 1091 , 1097-98 (1979) (“A trial court is allowed considerable discretion in making a Cy pres application and a reviewing court will step in only if the discretion is abused.”); Sherman v. Richmond Hose Co. No. 2, 230 N.Y. 462 , 130 N.E. 613, 616 (1921) (“The exercise of the cy pres doctrine always involves a large measure of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2007See Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 56 , 10 S.Ct. 792, 807 , 34 L.Ed. 478, 495 (1890) (recognizing the common law doctrine of cy pres, and stating its use is to fulfill the charitable purpose “as near as may be, to the original intention of the donor”). 2007See Late Corp. of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U.S. 1, 56 , 10 S.Ct. 792, 807 , 34 L.Ed. 478, 495 (1890) (recognizing the common law doctrine of cy pres, and stating its use is to fulfill the charitable purpose “as near as may be, to the original intention of the donor”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Small's Estategreen1 sentence1977“If property is given in trust to be applied to a particular charitable purpose, and it is or becomes impossible or impracticable or illegal to carry out the particular purpose, and if the settlor manifested a more general intention to devote the property to charitable purposes, the trust will not fail but the court will direct the application of the property to some charitable purpose which falls within the general charitable intention of the settlor.” While charitable trusts are favored by the law (In Re Estate of Small, 244 Iowa 1209, 1225-1227 , 58 N.W.2d 477, 485 (1953)), courts may not i | 1 | 1 |
Board of Education v. City of Rockfordgreen2 sentences1970Charities section 52, page 517; Board of Education of City of Rockford v. City of Rockford, 372 Ill. 442, 445 , 24 N.E.2d 366, 371, 372 . 1970Charities section 52, page 517; Board of Education of City of Rockford v. City of Rockford, 372 Ill. 442, 445 , 24 N.E.2d 366, 371, 372 . | 1 | 1 |
In re the Estate of Clevengreen2 sentences1970In re Estate of deven, 161 Iowa 289, 293, 294 , 142 N.W. 986 ; Klumpert v. Vrieland, supra. Indeed, had the will under consideration here expressed any charitable purpose, the cy pres doctrine could be applied. 1970In re Estate of deven, 161 Iowa 289, 293, 294 , 142 N.W. 986 ; Klumpert v. Vrieland, supra. Indeed, had the will under consideration here expressed any charitable purpose, the cy pres doctrine could be applied. | 1 | 1 |
Scott-Lees Collegiate Institute v. Charlesgreen2 sentences1944See, also, Scott-Lees Collegiate Inst. v. Charles, 283 Ky. 234 , 140 S. W. 2d 1060 ; Lewis v. Gaillard, 61 Fla. 819 , 56 So. 281 ; 14 C. 1944See, also, Scott-Lees Collegiate Inst. v. Charles, 283 Ky. 234 , 140 S. W. 2d 1060 ; Lewis v. Gaillard, 61 Fla. 819 , 56 So. 281 ; 14 C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kolb v. City of Storm Lake
green
2 sentences2019“Unless the statute directs otherwise, we will construe section 633A.5102 according to the legislature’s intent as aided by our precedent regarding the common law doctrine of cy pres.” Kolb, 736 N.W.2d at 555 . 2019“Section 633A.5102 has not changed the basic tripartite test.” Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Laster v. AT & T MOBILITY LLC
green
1 sentence2017The City alleges the total cost of the settlement to the City is $3,754,990.78, which includes $263,679.68 in escrow and administration fees and $1,563,795.33 in interest on the twenty-year bond the City issued to fund the settlement escrow account. 7 , "The cy pres doctrine ‘takes its.name from the Norman French expression, cy pres com-me possible, which means "as near as possible.” ’ ” Nachshin, 663 F.3d at 1038 (quoting In re Airline Ticket Comm'n Antitrust Litig. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Sias v. Van Alyea
green
1 sentence1977“If property is given in trust to be applied to a particular charitable purpose, and it is or becomes impossible or impracticable or illegal to carry out the particular purpose, and if the settlor manifested a more general intention to devote the property to charitable purposes, the trust will not fail but the court will direct the application of the property to some charitable purpose which falls within the general charitable intention of the settlor.” While charitable trusts are favored by the law (In Re Estate of Small, 244 Iowa 1209, 1225-1227 , 58 N.W.2d 477, 485 (1953)), courts may not i | 1 | 1977–1977 |
In Re Estate of Nugen
green
2 sentences1970Lupton v. Leander Clark College, 194 Iowa 1008, 1017, 1018 , 187 N.W. 496 ; In re Estate of Nugen, 223 Iowa 428, 434 , 272 N.W. 638 . 1970Lupton v. Leander Clark College, 194 Iowa 1008, 1017, 1018 , 187 N.W. 496 ; In re Estate of Nugen, 223 Iowa 428, 434 , 272 N.W. 638 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Board of Trustees v. Farrow
green
2 sentences1970In re Berry’s Estate, 29 Wis.2d 506 , 139 N.W.2d 72, 77 . 1970In re Berry’s Estate, 29 Wis.2d 506 , 139 N.W.2d 72, 77 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Hodge v. Wellman
neutral
2 sentences1970Hodge v. Wellman, 191 Iowa 877, 878 , 179 N.W. 534 , 14 C.J.S. 1970Hodge v. Wellman, 191 Iowa 877, 878 , 179 N.W. 534 , 14 C.J.S. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Crerar v. Williams
green
2 sentences1963(Citations) * * * "The contention that the gift is directly to the corporation, limited upon preceding bequests to individuals, and that it may not take effect until more than 21 years after the expiration of a life or lives in being, is therefore not well founded; and the same is true of the argument that the gift to the charity is contingent." To like effect see Jansen v. Godair, 292 Ill. 364 , 127 N.E. 97 and Crerar v. Williams, 145 Ill. 625 , 34 N.E. 467 , 21 L.R.A. 454 . 1963If for any reason it should be impossible to establish such a corporation, the gift would not fail, but the court would apply the doctrine of cy pres, and provide some other method of administering the charity to accomplish substantially the same result. [Citations] * * * “The contention that the gift is directly to the corporation, limited upon preceding bequests to individuals, and that it may not take effect until more than twenty-one years after the expiration of a life or lives in being, is therefore not well founded, and the same is true of the argument that the gift to the charity is co | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Jansen v. Godair
green
2 sentences1963If for any reason it should be impossible to establish such a corporation, the gift would not fail, but the court would apply the doctrine of cy pres, and provide some other method of administering the charity to accomplish substantially the same result. [Citations] * * * “The contention that the gift is directly to the corporation, limited upon preceding bequests to individuals, and that it may not take effect until more than twenty-one years after the expiration of a life or lives in being, is therefore not well founded, and the same is true of the argument that the gift to the charity is co 1963If for any reason it should be impossible to establish such a corporation, the gift would not fail, but the court would apply the doctrine of cy pres, and provide some other method of administering the charity to accomplish substantially the same result. [Citations] * * * “The contention that the gift is directly to the corporation, limited upon preceding bequests to individuals, and that it may not take effect until more than twenty-one years after the expiration of a life or lives in being, is therefore not well founded, and the same is true of the argument that the gift to the charity is co | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Lewis v. Gaillard
green
1 sentence1944See, also, Scott-Lees Collegiate Inst. v. Charles, 283 Ky. 234 , 140 S. W. 2d 1060 ; Lewis v. Gaillard, 61 Fla. 819 , 56 So. 281 ; 14 C. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Russell v. Allen
green
1 sentence1922This doctrine has been adopted by most of the states in the Union (Russell v. Allen, 107 U. S. 163 [27 Law. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Welbes v. Dieter
green
1 sentence1905It was held in that case that the cy pres doctrine is not recognized in this State, and cases in other'States in which that doctrine has been repudiated as an attempt to exercise the prerogative power without authority conferred by the will may be properly here cited in support of the proposition that a devise in trust, which designates no beneficiary for the trust, is void: McHugh v. McCole, 97 Wis. 166 ( 72 N. W. 631 , 40 L. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
McHugh v. McCole
neutral
1 sentence1905It was held in that case that the cy pres doctrine is not recognized in this State, and cases in other'States in which that doctrine has been repudiated as an attempt to exercise the prerogative power without authority conferred by the will may be properly here cited in support of the proposition that a devise in trust, which designates no beneficiary for the trust, is void: McHugh v. McCole, 97 Wis. 166 ( 72 N. W. 631 , 40 L. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
VIDAL v. Girard's Executors
green
1 sentence1903In Vidal et al., v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 194 ( 11 L. | 1 | 1903–1903 |
| State v. Everitt green | 1 | 1903–1903 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.