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.
9 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brede v. Koopgreen2 sentences2025“Prescriptive easements based on this relaxed standard ‘are determined either on the theory of a valid executed oral agreement or on the principle of estoppel.’” Brede, 706 N.W.2d at 827 (citation omitted). 2015Prescriptive easements based on this relaxed standard “are determined either on the theory of a valid executed oral agreement or on the principle of estoppel.” Id. 11 Under this exception to the strict rules governing prescriptive easements, an easement by prescription may arise “in those instances in which the original entry upon the lands of another is under an oral agreement or express consent of the servient owner and the party claiming the easement expends substantial money or labor to promote the claimed use in reliance upon the consent or as consideration for the agreement.” Brede v. Ko | 2 | 2 |
Simonsen v. Toddgreen2 sentences2015Prescriptive easements based on this relaxed standard “are determined either on the theory of a valid executed oral agreement or on the principle of estoppel.” Id. 11 Under this exception to the strict rules governing prescriptive easements, an easement by prescription may arise “in those instances in which the original entry upon the lands of another is under an oral agreement or express consent of the servient owner and the party claiming the easement expends substantial money or labor to promote the claimed use in reliance upon the consent or as consideration for the agreement.” Brede v. Ko 2015Prescriptive easements based on this relaxed standard “are determined either on the theory of a valid executed oral agreement or on the principle of estoppel.” Id. 11 Under this exception to the strict rules governing prescriptive easements, an easement by prescription may arise “in those instances in which the original entry upon the lands of another is under an oral agreement or express consent of the servient owner and the party claiming the easement expends substantial money or labor to promote the claimed use in reliance upon the consent or as consideration for the agreement.” Brede v. Ko | 1 | 3 |
State v. Groffgreen1 sentence2024See Groff, 323 N.W.2d at 208 . | 1 | 1 |
Donald D. Fletcher v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporationgreen1 sentence2016The test “is simply whether the proofs justify with reason the conclusion that employer negligence played any part, even the slightest, in producing the injury or death for which damages are sought.” Id.; accord Fletcher, 621 F.2d at 909 (“The test of causation under the FELA is whether the railroad’s negligence played any part, however small, in the injury which is the subject of the suit.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. McBride
green
2 sentences2025The Court found support for its broad reading directly from Gottshall: “Given the breadth of the phrase ‘resulting in whole or in part from the [railroad’s] negligence,’ and Congress’ ‘humanitarian’ and ‘remedial goal[s],’ we have recognized that, in comparison to tort litigation at common law, ‘a relaxed standard of causation applies under FELA.’ ” Id. at 691–92 (alteration in original) (quoting Gottshall, 512 U.S. at 542–43). 2025The Court found support for its broad reading directly from Gottshall: “Given the breadth of the phrase ‘resulting in whole or in part from the [railroad’s] negligence,’ and Congress’ ‘humanitarian’ and ‘remedial goal[s],’ we have recognized that, in comparison to tort litigation at common law, ‘a relaxed standard of causation applies under FELA.’ ” Id. at 691–92 (alteration in original) (quoting Gottshall, 512 U.S. at 542–43). | 3 | 2016–2025 |
Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall
green
2 sentences2025The Court found support for its broad reading directly from Gottshall: “Given the breadth of the phrase ‘resulting in whole or in part from the [railroad’s] negligence,’ and Congress’ ‘humanitarian’ and ‘remedial goal[s],’ we have recognized that, in comparison to tort litigation at common law, ‘a relaxed standard of causation applies under FELA.’ ” Id. at 691–92 (alteration in original) (quoting Gottshall, 512 U.S. at 542–43). 2025The Court found support for its broad reading directly from Gottshall: “Given the breadth of the phrase ‘resulting in whole or in part from the [railroad’s] negligence,’ and Congress’ ‘humanitarian’ and ‘remedial goal[s],’ we have recognized that, in comparison to tort litigation at common law, ‘a relaxed standard of causation applies under FELA.’ ” Id. at 691–92 (alteration in original) (quoting Gottshall, 512 U.S. at 542–43). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Matlock
green
1 sentence1996Schmid, 288 N.Y.S.2d at 825 ; Matlock, 462 S.W.2d at 278 ; see, e.g., Valdes v. Prudence Mut. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
In re the Arbitration between Merchants Mutual Insurance & Schmid
green
1 sentence1996Schmid, 288 N.Y.S.2d at 825 ; Matlock, 462 S.W.2d at 278 ; see, e.g., Valdes v. Prudence Mut. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.