Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 1903–1976 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Meyer v. Houck
green
2 sentences1944Meyer & Bros. v. Houck, 85 Iowa 319 ; Hurd & Wilkinson v. Neilson, 100 Iowa 555 ; Cherry v. Des Moines Leader, 114 Iowa 298 , and eases cited. 1932Meyer v. Houck, 85 Iowa 319 ; Wendt v. Foss, 161 Iowa 122 ; Slaughter v. McManigal, 138 Iowa 643 ; Sanderson v. C. | 4 | 1903–1944 |
McGlade v. City of Waterloo
neutral
2 sentences1937In McGlade v. City of Waterloo, 178 Iowa 11, 13 , 156 N. W. 680 , 681, we said: “We have repudiated the scintilla doctrine, and announced the rule that a trial judge should sustain a motion to direct whenever, considering all of the testimony, it clearly appears to him that it would be his duty to set aside a verdict if found in favor of the party upon whom the burden of proof rests. * * * ‘ ‘ For example, if the testimony offered by the party having the burden, is in conflict with undisputed facts, and especially with physical facts which are a verity, or is such that, under all the circumsta 1928In McGlade v. City of Waterloo, 178 Iowa 11 , we said: “We have repudiated the scintilla doctrine, and announced the rule that a trial judge should sustain a motion to direct whenever, considering all of the testimony, it clearly appears to him that it would be his duty to set aside a verdict if found in favor of the party upon whom the burden of proof rests.” See, also, Strader v. Armstrong, 192 Iowa 1368 . | 3 | 1922–1937 |
Ellingson v. Kramer
green
2 sentences1976Ellingson v. Kramer, 255 Iowa 1257 , 125 N.W.2d 777 . 1976Ellingson v. Kramer, 255 Iowa 1257 , 125 N.W.2d 777 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
In Re Estate of Sinift
green
2 sentences1974Volkswagen Iowa City, Inc. v. Scott’s Inc., 165 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa); Ehrhardt v. Ruan Transport Corp., 245 Iowa 193 , 61 N.W.2d 696 ; In re Sinift’s Estate, 233 Iowa 800 , 10 N.W.2d 550 . 1974Volkswagen Iowa City, Inc. v. Scott’s Inc., 165 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa); Ehrhardt v. Ruan Transport Corp., 245 Iowa 193 , 61 N.W.2d 696 ; In re Sinift’s Estate, 233 Iowa 800 , 10 N.W.2d 550 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Ehrhardt v. Ruan Transport Corp.
green
2 sentences1974Volkswagen Iowa City, Inc. v. Scott’s Inc., 165 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa); Ehrhardt v. Ruan Transport Corp., 245 Iowa 193 , 61 N.W.2d 696 ; In re Sinift’s Estate, 233 Iowa 800 , 10 N.W.2d 550 . 1974Volkswagen Iowa City, Inc. v. Scott’s Inc., 165 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa); Ehrhardt v. Ruan Transport Corp., 245 Iowa 193 , 61 N.W.2d 696 ; In re Sinift’s Estate, 233 Iowa 800 , 10 N.W.2d 550 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Volkswagen Iowa City, Inc. v. Scott's Incorporated
green
2 sentences1974Volkswagen Iowa City, Inc. v. Scott’s Inc., 165 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa); Ehrhardt v. Ruan Transport Corp., 245 Iowa 193 , 61 N.W.2d 696 ; In re Sinift’s Estate, 233 Iowa 800 , 10 N.W.2d 550 . 1974Volkswagen Iowa City, Inc. v. Scott's Inc., 165 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa); Ehrhardt v. Ruan Transport Corp., 245 Iowa 193 , 61 N.W.2d 696 ; In re Sinift's Estate, 233 Iowa 800 , 10 N.W.2d 550 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Hurd v. Neilson
neutral
1 sentence1944Meyer & Bros. v. Houck, 85 Iowa 319 ; Hurd & Wilkinson v. Neilson, 100 Iowa 555 ; Cherry v. Des Moines Leader, 114 Iowa 298 , and eases cited. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Cherry v. Des Moines Leader
green
1 sentence1944Meyer & Bros. v. Houck, 85 Iowa 319 ; Hurd & Wilkinson v. Neilson, 100 Iowa 555 ; Cherry v. Des Moines Leader, 114 Iowa 298 , and eases cited. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Slaughter v. McManigal
green
1 sentence1932Meyer v. Houck, 85 Iowa 319 ; Wendt v. Foss, 161 Iowa 122 ; Slaughter v. McManigal, 138 Iowa 643 ; Sanderson v. C. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Wendt v. Foss
green
1 sentence1932Meyer v. Houck, 85 Iowa 319 ; Wendt v. Foss, 161 Iowa 122 ; Slaughter v. McManigal, 138 Iowa 643 ; Sanderson v. C. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Strader v. Armstrong
neutral
1 sentence1928In McGlade v. City of Waterloo, 178 Iowa 11 , we said: “We have repudiated the scintilla doctrine, and announced the rule that a trial judge should sustain a motion to direct whenever, considering all of the testimony, it clearly appears to him that it would be his duty to set aside a verdict if found in favor of the party upon whom the burden of proof rests.” See, also, Strader v. Armstrong, 192 Iowa 1368 . | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Louisville Water Co. v. Lally
neutral
1 sentence1917In such case, that which purports to be evidence is insufficient to constitute a compliance with the requirements of the scintilla rule, for it is the essence of that rule that there must be some evidence (however slight) upon which the jury might rationally find a verdict for the party producing it.” See, also, Louisville Water Co. v. Lally, (Ky.) 182 S. W. 186 , and Peat v. Chicago, M. & St. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.