proof requirement in Iowa

2019Co., 653 N.W.2d 556 , 562–63 (Iowa 2002) (“Grinnell was plainly prejudiced by submission of the case under a legal theory at variance with the proof and defense anticipated by the litigants both before and during the trial.”); see Gosha v. Woller, 288 N.W.2d 329, 332 (Iowa 1980) (“[A]lthough [plaintiff’s] petition was limited to the theory of express warranty the evidence was not.”).

2002See Gosha, 288 N.W.2d at 332 (“although [plaintiffs] petition was limited to the theory of express warranty the evidence was not”).

2019Co., 653 N.W.2d 556 , 562–63 (Iowa 2002) (“Grinnell was plainly prejudiced by submission of the case under a legal theory at variance with the proof and defense anticipated by the litigants both before and during the trial.”); see Gosha v. Woller, 288 N.W.2d 329, 332 (Iowa 1980) (“[A]lthough [plaintiff’s] petition was limited to the theory of express warranty the evidence was not.”).

2019See McCleeary v. Wirtz, 222 N.W.2d 409, 417 (Iowa 1974) (noting “random discussion” of an issue “will not be considered” on appeal). 19 of mind and body and pain and suffering for J.G.” and additionally addressed future damages for the loss-of-consortium claims.

2014See Edouard, 854 N.W.2d at 452–54 (Appel, J., concurring specially).

2010See In re Shank, 315 B.R. 799, 810 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2004) (rejecting the argument that the normal proof of claim requirements should be loosened because Regulation Z does not require the relevant records to be retained).

1971W & W Livestock Enterprises, Inc. v. Dennler, 179 N.W.2d 484, 488 (Iowa 1970), but here we find no evidence upon which the specification could properly be submitted.