7 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 1909–1999 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 |
|---|---|---|
Van Maanen v. Van Maanengreen1 sentence1998Iowa Code ch. 642; Van Maanen v. Van Maanen, 360 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Iowa 1985). | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Pampered Beef-Midwest, Inc.green1 sentence1985Nelson v. Pampered Beef-Midwest, Inc., 298 N.W.2d 281, 286 (Iowa 1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Marriage of Eklofe
green
1 sentence1999Eklofe, 586 N.W.2d at 359 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Union C.L. Ins. Co. v. Iowa M. Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1935Co., 216 Iowa 762 , at page 765, 249 N. W. 653 , 655, this court said: "Acceptance of a check by a creditor is not necessarily a payment of the debt or claim. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
J.T. Enterline Son v. Andrew
neutral
1 sentence1935Under various circumstances and by agreement or intendment it may operate as a payment.” In Enterline & Son v. Andrew, 211 Iowa 176 , at page 177, 231 N. W. 416 , 417, we find: "A cheek may be received as conditional payment, or it may be accepted as full payment and in extinguishment of the original indebtedness.” In McFarland v. Howell, 162 Iowa 110 , at page 116, 143 N. W. 860, 862 , the court said: "The general rule is that when a check is received by the creditor there is no presumption that he takes it in payment, but, on the contrary, the implication is that it is only to be regarded as | 1 | 1935–1935 |
McFarland v. Howell
neutral
2 sentences1935Under various circumstances and by agreement or intendment it may operate as a payment.” In Enterline & Son v. Andrew, 211 Iowa 176 , at page 177, 231 N. W. 416 , 417, we find: "A cheek may be received as conditional payment, or it may be accepted as full payment and in extinguishment of the original indebtedness.” In McFarland v. Howell, 162 Iowa 110 , at page 116, 143 N. W. 860, 862 , the court said: "The general rule is that when a check is received by the creditor there is no presumption that he takes it in payment, but, on the contrary, the implication is that it is only to be regarded as 1935Under various circumstances and by agreement or intendment it may operate as a payment.” In Enterline & Son v. Andrew, 211 Iowa 176 , at page 177, 231 N. W. 416 , 417, we find: "A cheek may be received as conditional payment, or it may be accepted as full payment and in extinguishment of the original indebtedness.” In McFarland v. Howell, 162 Iowa 110 , at page 116, 143 N. W. 860, 862 , the court said: "The general rule is that when a check is received by the creditor there is no presumption that he takes it in payment, but, on the contrary, the implication is that it is only to be regarded as | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Heuser v. Sharman
green
2 sentences1934Rep. 728 . in Kent v. Bailey, 181 Iowa 489 , 164 N. W. 852 , said: “ ‘Subrogation is the substitution of one person in place of another, whether as a creditor or as the possessor of any other rightful claim, so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim, and its right, remedies, or securities.’ * * * See Heuser v. Sharman, 89 Iowa 355 , 56 N. W. 525 , 48 Am. 1934Rep. 728 . in Kent v. Bailey, 181 Iowa 489 , 164 N. W. 852 , said: “ ‘Subrogation is the substitution of one person in place of another, whether as a creditor or as the possessor of any other rightful claim, so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim, and its right, remedies, or securities.’ * * * See Heuser v. Sharman, 89 Iowa 355 , 56 N. W. 525 , 48 Am. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Kent v. Bailey
green
1 sentence1934Rep. 728 . in Kent v. Bailey, 181 Iowa 489 , 164 N. W. 852 , said: “ ‘Subrogation is the substitution of one person in place of another, whether as a creditor or as the possessor of any other rightful claim, so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim, and its right, remedies, or securities.’ * * * See Heuser v. Sharman, 89 Iowa 355 , 56 N. W. 525 , 48 Am. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Douglas v. Albrecht
green
1 sentence1918Douglas v. Albrecht, 130 Iowa 132 ; Christe v. Chicago, R. | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Hale v. Walker
neutral
1 sentence1909Hale v. Walker, 31 Iowa, 344 . | 1 | 1909–1909 |
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.