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 1 courts 1944–1978 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 |
|---|---|---|
Goodwin Tile & Brick Co. v. DeVriesgreen2 sentences1969In Goodwin Tile & Brick Co. v. DeVries, 234 Iowa 566, 568, 569 , 13 N.W.2d 310, 312 , 155 A.L.R. 346, 349 , we quote this from Smith v. Coutant, 232 Iowa 887, 891 , 6 N.W. 2d 421 , 424: “In general, the doctrine of equitable estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments, to the injury of one to whom they were directed, and who reasonably relied thereon. 1969In Goodwin Tile & Brick Co. v. DeVries, 234 Iowa 566, 568, 569 , 13 N.W.2d 310, 312 , 155 A.L.R. 346, 349 , we quote this from Smith v. Coutant, 232 Iowa 887, 891 , 6 N.W. 2d 421 , 424: “In general, the doctrine of equitable estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments, to the injury of one to whom they were directed, and who reasonably relied thereon. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Coutant
green
2 sentences1972In Holsteen v. Thompson, 169 N.W.2d at 558 , the court quoted with approval this statement of law from Smith v. Coutant, 232 Iowa 887, 891 , 6 N.W.2d 421 , 424: “ * * * ‘In general, the doctrine of equitable estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments, to the injury of one to whom they were directed, and who reasonably relied thereon. 1972In Holsteen v. Thompson, 169 N.W.2d at 558 , the court quoted with approval this statement of law from Smith v. Coutant, 232 Iowa 887, 891 , 6 N.W.2d 421 , 424: “ * * * ‘In general, the doctrine of equitable estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments, to the injury of one to whom they were directed, and who reasonably relied thereon. | 6 | 1944–1972 |
Iowa Movers & Warehousemen's Ass'n v. Briggs
green
2 sentences1978Iowa Movers, supra ; McAllister, supra. Such would be the result here if the injunctions were to be ordered as prayed by DOT. 1978Iowa Movers, supra; McAllister, supra. Such would be the result here if the injunctions were to be ordered as prayed by DOT. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Laughlin v. Hall
green
2 sentences1978In Laughlin v. Hall, 236 Iowa 990 , 20 N.W.2d 415, 417 , this court stated: “ ‘In general, the doctrine of equitable estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments, to the injury of one to whom they were directed, and who reasonably relied thereon.’ ” More recently we said that equitable estop-pel will be resorted to whenever injustice would result. 1978In Laughlin v. Hall, 236 Iowa 990 , 20 N.W.2d 415, 417 , this court stated: “ ‘In general, the doctrine of equitable estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments, to the injury of one to whom they were directed, and who reasonably relied thereon.’ ” More recently we said that equitable estop-pel will be resorted to whenever injustice would result. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
In Re the Estate of McAllister
green
2 sentences1978Iowa Movers, supra ; McAllister, supra. Such would be the result here if the injunctions were to be ordered as prayed by DOT. 1978Iowa Movers, supra; McAllister, supra. Such would be the result here if the injunctions were to be ordered as prayed by DOT. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Holsteen v. Thompson
green
1 sentence1972In Holsteen v. Thompson, 169 N.W.2d at 558 , the court quoted with approval this statement of law from Smith v. Coutant, 232 Iowa 887, 891 , 6 N.W.2d 421 , 424: “ * * * ‘In general, the doctrine of equitable estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments, to the injury of one to whom they were directed, and who reasonably relied thereon. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Knutson v. Vidders
neutral
2 sentences1969Such a doctrine is neither odious nor in disfavor, in either law or equity.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) See also Lamp v. Lempfert, 259 Iowa 902 , 146 N.W.2d 241 ; Wetzstein v. Dehrkoop, 241 Iowa 1237, 1244-1245 , 44 N.W.2d 695 ; Smith v. Coutant, 232 Iowa 887 , 6 N.W.2d 421 ; Bowman v. Swanwood Coal Co., 201 Iowa 1236 , 207 N.W. 591 ; Sawyer v. Iowa Const. Prohibitory Amendment Ass’n, 177 Iowa 218 , 158 N.W. 679 ; Knutson v. Vidders, 126 Iowa 511 , 102 N.W. 433 ; and 31 C.J.S. 1969Such a doctrine is neither odious nor in disfavor, in either law or equity.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) See also Lamp v. Lempfert, 259 Iowa 902 , 146 N.W.2d 241 ; Wetzstein v. Dehrkoop, 241 Iowa 1237, 1244-1245 , 44 N.W.2d 695 ; Smith v. Coutant, 232 Iowa 887 , 6 N.W.2d 421 ; Bowman v. Swanwood Coal Co., 201 Iowa 1236 , 207 N.W. 591 ; Sawyer v. Iowa Const. Prohibitory Amendment Ass’n, 177 Iowa 218 , 158 N.W. 679 ; Knutson v. Vidders, 126 Iowa 511 , 102 N.W. 433 ; and 31 C.J.S. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Sawyer v. Iowa Constitutional Prohibitory Amendment Ass'n
green
1 sentence1969Such a doctrine is neither odious nor in disfavor, in either law or equity.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) See also Lamp v. Lempfert, 259 Iowa 902 , 146 N.W.2d 241 ; Wetzstein v. Dehrkoop, 241 Iowa 1237, 1244-1245 , 44 N.W.2d 695 ; Smith v. Coutant, 232 Iowa 887 , 6 N.W.2d 421 ; Bowman v. Swanwood Coal Co., 201 Iowa 1236 , 207 N.W. 591 ; Sawyer v. Iowa Const. Prohibitory Amendment Ass’n, 177 Iowa 218 , 158 N.W. 679 ; Knutson v. Vidders, 126 Iowa 511 , 102 N.W. 433 ; and 31 C.J.S. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Lamp v. Lempfert
green
2 sentences1969Such a doctrine is neither odious nor in disfavor, in either law or equity.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) See also Lamp v. Lempfert, 259 Iowa 902 , 146 N.W.2d 241 ; Wetzstein v. Dehrkoop, 241 Iowa 1237, 1244-1245 , 44 N.W.2d 695 ; Smith v. Coutant, 232 Iowa 887 , 6 N.W.2d 421 ; Bowman v. Swanwood Coal Co., 201 Iowa 1236 , 207 N.W. 591 ; Sawyer v. Iowa Const. Prohibitory Amendment Ass’n, 177 Iowa 218 , 158 N.W. 679 ; Knutson v. Vidders, 126 Iowa 511 , 102 N.W. 433 ; and 31 C.J.S. 1969Such a doctrine is neither odious nor in disfavor, in either law or equity.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) See also Lamp v. Lempfert, 259 Iowa 902 , 146 N.W.2d 241 ; Wetzstein v. Dehrkoop, 241 Iowa 1237, 1244-1245 , 44 N.W.2d 695 ; Smith v. Coutant, 232 Iowa 887 , 6 N.W.2d 421 ; Bowman v. Swanwood Coal Co., 201 Iowa 1236 , 207 N.W. 591 ; Sawyer v. Iowa Const. Prohibitory Amendment Ass’n, 177 Iowa 218 , 158 N.W. 679 ; Knutson v. Vidders, 126 Iowa 511 , 102 N.W. 433 ; and 31 C.J.S. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Bowman v. Swanwood Coal Co.
neutral
2 sentences1969Such a doctrine is neither odious nor in disfavor, in either law or equity.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) See also Lamp v. Lempfert, 259 Iowa 902 , 146 N.W.2d 241 ; Wetzstein v. Dehrkoop, 241 Iowa 1237, 1244-1245 , 44 N.W.2d 695 ; Smith v. Coutant, 232 Iowa 887 , 6 N.W.2d 421 ; Bowman v. Swanwood Coal Co., 201 Iowa 1236 , 207 N.W. 591 ; Sawyer v. Iowa Const. Prohibitory Amendment Ass’n, 177 Iowa 218 , 158 N.W. 679 ; Knutson v. Vidders, 126 Iowa 511 , 102 N.W. 433 ; and 31 C.J.S. 1969Such a doctrine is neither odious nor in disfavor, in either law or equity.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) See also Lamp v. Lempfert, 259 Iowa 902 , 146 N.W.2d 241 ; Wetzstein v. Dehrkoop, 241 Iowa 1237, 1244-1245 , 44 N.W.2d 695 ; Smith v. Coutant, 232 Iowa 887 , 6 N.W.2d 421 ; Bowman v. Swanwood Coal Co., 201 Iowa 1236 , 207 N.W. 591 ; Sawyer v. Iowa Const. Prohibitory Amendment Ass’n, 177 Iowa 218 , 158 N.W. 679 ; Knutson v. Vidders, 126 Iowa 511 , 102 N.W. 433 ; and 31 C.J.S. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Wetzstein v. Dehrkoop
green
2 sentences1969Such a doctrine is neither odious nor in disfavor, in either law or equity.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) See also Lamp v. Lempfert, 259 Iowa 902 , 146 N.W.2d 241 ; Wetzstein v. Dehrkoop, 241 Iowa 1237, 1244-1245 , 44 N.W.2d 695 ; Smith v. Coutant, 232 Iowa 887 , 6 N.W.2d 421 ; Bowman v. Swanwood Coal Co., 201 Iowa 1236 , 207 N.W. 591 ; Sawyer v. Iowa Const. Prohibitory Amendment Ass’n, 177 Iowa 218 , 158 N.W. 679 ; Knutson v. Vidders, 126 Iowa 511 , 102 N.W. 433 ; and 31 C.J.S. 1969Such a doctrine is neither odious nor in disfavor, in either law or equity.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) See also Lamp v. Lempfert, 259 Iowa 902 , 146 N.W.2d 241 ; Wetzstein v. Dehrkoop, 241 Iowa 1237, 1244-1245 , 44 N.W.2d 695 ; Smith v. Coutant, 232 Iowa 887 , 6 N.W.2d 421 ; Bowman v. Swanwood Coal Co., 201 Iowa 1236 , 207 N.W. 591 ; Sawyer v. Iowa Const. Prohibitory Amendment Ass’n, 177 Iowa 218 , 158 N.W. 679 ; Knutson v. Vidders, 126 Iowa 511 , 102 N.W. 433 ; and 31 C.J.S. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Kennedy v. Oleson
green
2 sentences1967Such a doctrine is neither odious nor in disfavor, in either law or equity.’ ” In connection herewith see also Alcorn v. Linke, supra, loc. cit., 257 Iowa 640, 641 ; Kennedy v. Oleson, 251 Iowa 418, 428 , 100 N.W.2d 894 ; 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, section 67(a), page 402; and 28 Am. 1967Such a doctrine is neither odious nor in disfavor, in either law or equity.’ ” In connection herewith see also Alcorn v. Linke, supra, loc. cit., 257 Iowa 640, 641 ; Kennedy v. Oleson, 251 Iowa 418, 428 , 100 N.W.2d 894 ; 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, section 67(a), page 402; and 28 Am. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Green Bay Lumber Co. v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1944Such a doctrine is neither odious nor in disfavor, in either law or equity. ’ ’ In Green Bay Lumber Co. v. Thomas, 106 Iowa 154 , 76 N. W. 651 , we held that a subcontractor who told the owner he would not look to the latter for payment was estopped from claiming a lien as to the amount of a payment made by the owner to other subcontractors on the strength of such representation. 1944Such a doctrine is neither odious nor in disfavor, in either law or equity. ’ ’ In Green Bay Lumber Co. v. Thomas, 106 Iowa 154 , 76 N. W. 651 , we held that a subcontractor who told the owner he would not look to the latter for payment was estopped from claiming a lien as to the amount of a payment made by the owner to other subcontractors on the strength of such representation. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
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.