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.
7 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1942–1993 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ellison v. Lankfordgreen2 sentences1993In Ellison v. Lankford, 650 S.W.2d 762, 763 (Tenn.App.1983), the Tennessee Court of Appeals recognized the defense of sudden emergency in relation to the defendant’s compliance with the assured clear distance rule statute. 1993Quoting from Strickland, the court stated: “[T]he law in Tennessee today ... is that the assured clear distance rule does not apply where the motorist encounters a dangerous situation which in the exercise of reasonable care he had no reason to expect, and that drivers must use reasonable care under the circumstances which exist at the particular time, and the standard for such reasonable care is flexible, some occasions and sets of circumstances requiring a higher degree of care than others and that, therefore, the question of whether a plaintiff under a certain set of circumstances did or di | 1 | 1 |
Wells v. Wildingreen2 sentences1967The assured-clear-distance rule is set out in the first paragraph of Code section 321.285 (section 5029, Code 1935) which requires all motorists to drive “at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway and of any other conditions then existing,- and no person shall drive any vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than will permit him to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead, such driver having the right to assume, however, that all persons using said highway will 1967The assured-clear-distance rule is set out in the first paragraph of Code section 321.285 (section 5029, Code 1935) which requires all motorists to drive “at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface and width of the highway and of any other conditions then existing,- and no person shall drive any vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than will permit him to bring it to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead, such driver having the right to assume, however, that all persons using said highway will | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bonnett v. Oertwig
green
2 sentences1967Plaintiff’s argument seems to be that since we have said the assured-clear-distance rule is essentially a speed regulation rather than one requiring a motorist to stop (Bonnett v. Oertwig, 234 Iowa 864, 866 , 14 N.W.2d 739, 741 ) and there is evidence defendant was speeding, submission of the rule was proper. 1967Plaintiff’s argument seems to be that since we have said the assured-clear-distance rule is essentially a speed regulation rather than one requiring a motorist to stop (Bonnett v. Oertwig, 234 Iowa 864, 866 , 14 N.W.2d 739, 741 ) and there is evidence defendant was speeding, submission of the rule was proper. | 2 | 1954–1967 |
Central States Electric Co. v. McVay
green
2 sentences1966Central States Electric Co. v. McVay, 232 Iowa 469, 473 , 5 N.W.2d 817 . 1966Central States Electric Co. v. McVay, 232 Iowa 469, 473 , 5 N.W.2d 817 . | 2 | 1947–1966 |
Strickland Transp. Co. v. Douglas
green
2 sentences1993Quoting from Strickland, the court stated: “[T]he law in Tennessee today ... is that the assured clear distance rule does not apply where the motorist encounters a dangerous situation which in the exercise of reasonable care he had no reason to expect, and that drivers must use reasonable care under the circumstances which exist at the particular time, and the standard for such reasonable care is flexible, some occasions and sets of circumstances requiring a higher degree of care than others and that, therefore, the question of whether a plaintiff under a certain set of circumstances did or di 1993Quoting from Strickland, the court stated: "[T]he law in Tennessee today ... is that the assured clear distance rule does not apply where the motorist encounters a dangerous situation which in the exercise of reasonable care he had no reason to expect, and that drivers must use reasonable care under the circumstances which exist at the particular time, and the standard for such reasonable care is flexible, some occasions and sets of circumstances requiring a higher degree of care than others and that, therefore, the question of whether a plaintiff under a certain set of circumstances did or di | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Boegel v. Morse
neutral
1 sentence1967The opinion holds no such violation was shown but adds “We question whether the facts make the ‘assured clear distance’ statute (section 321.285, Code, 1946) applicable, * * The facts in Boegel v. Morse, 251 Iowa 1253, 1258 , 104 *935 N.W.2d 826, 829, are much like those in Leinen v. Boettger, supra, except that defendant Morse drove into the intersection from the left and turned on the primary highway ahead of plaintiff who turned onto the shoulder to avoid a collision. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Jordan v. Schantz
green
2 sentences1942Division I sufficiently states our view that the assured-clear-distance requirement is not applicable to the situation presented here, but the case is ruled by Jordan v. Schantz, 220 Iowa 1251 , 264 N. W. 259 , and similar decisions. 1942Division I sufficiently states our view that the assured-clear-distance requirement is not applicable to the situation presented here, but the case is ruled by Jordan v. Schantz, 220 Iowa 1251 , 264 N. W. 259 , and similar decisions. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Carlson v. Decker Sons
neutral
2 sentences1942Attention is called to Carlson v. Decker & Sons, 216 Iowa 581, 585 , 247 N. W. 296 , and Caudle v. Zenor, 217 Iowa 77, 82 , 251 N. W. 69 , where a similar result was reached on a somewhat different theory. 1942Attention is called to Carlson v. Decker & Sons, 216 Iowa 581, 585 , 247 N. W. 296 , and Caudle v. Zenor, 217 Iowa 77, 82 , 251 N. W. 69 , where a similar result was reached on a somewhat different theory. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Caudle v. Zenor
green
2 sentences1942Attention is called to Carlson v. Decker & Sons, 216 Iowa 581, 585 , 247 N. W. 296 , and Caudle v. Zenor, 217 Iowa 77, 82 , 251 N. W. 69 , where a similar result was reached on a somewhat different theory. 1942Attention is called to Carlson v. Decker & Sons, 216 Iowa 581, 585 , 247 N. W. 296 , and Caudle v. Zenor, 217 Iowa 77, 82 , 251 N. W. 69 , where a similar result was reached on a somewhat different theory. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
McWilliams v. Beck
green
2 sentences1942McWilliams v. Beck, 220 Iowa 906, 913 , 262 N. W. 781 . 1942McWilliams v. Beck, 220 Iowa 906, 913 , 262 N. W. 781 . | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Remer v. Takin Brothers Freight Lines, Inc.
green
2 sentences1942In Remer v. Takin Bros., 227 Iowa 903, 909 , 289 N. W. 477, 480 , Jordan v. Schantz is explained by saying: “There was no occasion to apply section 5029 [now section 5023.01] to the facts shown by the record in that case, and we so held.” V. 1942In Remer v. Takin Bros., 227 Iowa 903, 909 , 289 N. W. 477, 480 , Jordan v. Schantz is explained by saying: “There was no occasion to apply section 5029 [now section 5023.01] to the facts shown by the record in that case, and we so held.” V. | 1 | 1942–1942 |
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.