7 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 1902–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Montandon v. HARGRAVE CONSTRUCTION COMPANYgreen2 sentences2012Co., 256 Iowa 1297, 1299 , 130 N.W.2d 659, 660 (1964) (recognizing the general common law rule of immunity), the State may constructively waive its immunity by entering into a contract. 2012Co., 256 Iowa 1297, 1299 , 130 N.W.2d 659, 660 (1964) (recognizing the general common law rule of immunity), the State may constructively waive its immunity by entering into a contract. | 1 | 1 |
Bredice v. Doctors Hospital, Inc.green1 sentence1986The cases on which the hospital relies, while determining that such a privilege makes sense and should be adopted, derive the privilege not from common law roots but from “overwhelming public interest.” See e.g., Bredice v. Doctors Hospital, Inc., 50 F.R.D. at 251 (hospital’s minutes and reports entitled to a qualified privilege on the basis of “overwhelming public interest”); Segal v. Roberts, 380 So.2d 1049, 1052 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979) (many of the matters sought are not subject to discovery as a “matter of public policy”); Dade County Medical Association v. Hlis, 372 So.2d 117, 121 (Fla.Dis | 1 | 1 |
Dade County Med. Ass'n v. Hlisgreen1 sentence1986The cases on which the hospital relies, while determining that such a privilege makes sense and should be adopted, derive the privilege not from common law roots but from “overwhelming public interest.” See e.g., Bredice v. Doctors Hospital, Inc., 50 F.R.D. at 251 (hospital’s minutes and reports entitled to a qualified privilege on the basis of “overwhelming public interest”); Segal v. Roberts, 380 So.2d 1049, 1052 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979) (many of the matters sought are not subject to discovery as a “matter of public policy”); Dade County Medical Association v. Hlis, 372 So.2d 117, 121 (Fla.Dis | 1 | 1 |
Segal v. Robertsgreen1 sentence1986The cases on which the hospital relies, while determining that such a privilege makes sense and should be adopted, derive the privilege not from common law roots but from “overwhelming public interest.” See e.g., Bredice v. Doctors Hospital, Inc., 50 F.R.D. at 251 (hospital’s minutes and reports entitled to a qualified privilege on the basis of “overwhelming public interest”); Segal v. Roberts, 380 So.2d 1049, 1052 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979) (many of the matters sought are not subject to discovery as a “matter of public policy”); Dade County Medical Association v. Hlis, 372 So.2d 117, 121 (Fla.Dis | 1 | 1 |
Oviatt v. Archbishop Bergan Mercy Hospitalgreen2 sentences1986The cases on which the hospital relies, while determining that such a privilege makes sense and should be adopted, derive the privilege not from common law roots but from “overwhelming public interest.” See e.g., Bredice v. Doctors Hospital, Inc., 50 F.R.D. at 251 (hospital’s minutes and reports entitled to a qualified privilege on the basis of “overwhelming public interest”); Segal v. Roberts, 380 So.2d 1049, 1052 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979) (many of the matters sought are not subject to discovery as a “matter of public policy”); Dade County Medical Association v. Hlis, 372 So.2d 117, 121 (Fla.Dis 1986The cases on which the hospital relies, while determining that such a privilege makes sense and should be adopted, derive the privilege not from common law roots but from “overwhelming public interest.” See e.g., Bredice v. Doctors Hospital, Inc., 50 F.R.D. at 251 (hospital’s minutes and reports entitled to a qualified privilege on the basis of “overwhelming public interest”); Segal v. Roberts, 380 So.2d 1049, 1052 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979) (many of the matters sought are not subject to discovery as a “matter of public policy”); Dade County Medical Association v. Hlis, 372 So.2d 117, 121 (Fla.Dis | 1 | 1 |
Buss v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Americagreen1 sentence1981Although the general common-law rule holds tenants in common to be indispensable parties who must join as parties plaintiff in personal actions concerning the common property, Buss v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 126 F.2d 960, 967 (8th Cir. 1942); 20 Am.Jur.2d Cotenancy and Joint Ownership § 113 (1965), in many jurisdictions a co-owner may recover the entire common property as against a stranger, the recovery being subject to or for the benefit of the other cotenants. 86 C.J.S. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kersten Co., Inc. v. Department of Social Services
green
1 sentence2012Kersten, 207 N.W.2d at 120 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Recker v. Gustafson
green
1 sentence1982Id. at 759 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
First Presbyterian Church v. Hodge
green
2 sentences1959(See In re Estate of Barrie, 240 Iowa 431, 435 , 35 N.W.2d 658, 661 , 9 A. L. 1959(See In re Estate of Barrie, 240 Iowa 431, 435 , 35 N.W.2d 658, 661 , 9 A. L. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Widney v. Hess
green
2 sentences1959Widney v. Hess, 242 Iowa 342, 346 , 45 N.W.2d 233, 236 , holds that under 633.49’ a holographic will, valid where executed, may be admitted to probate in Iowa, and land here may pass under it notwithstanding the general common-law rule that the validity of a will devising land is determined by the law of the place where the land is. 1959Widney v. Hess, 242 Iowa 342, 346 , 45 N.W.2d 233, 236 , holds that under 633.49’ a holographic will, valid where executed, may be admitted to probate in Iowa, and land here may pass under it notwithstanding the general common-law rule that the validity of a will devising land is determined by the law of the place where the land is. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Martin v. Trustees of Mercer University
green
1 sentence1902See In re Harvey's Estate [1893] 1 Ch. 567; Martin v. Trustees, 98 Ga. 320 (25 S. E. | 1 | 1902–1902 |
Atchison Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. Hague
neutral
1 sentence1902Turning to the statute, we iindthe provision to be that the whistle of the engine shall be sounded “at least sixty rods beforea crossing is reached. ” The effect of this is to indicate the kind of warning which must be given, and the minimum limit within which the duty must be performed, but does not abrogate the common-law obligation which would require a warning at a greater distance if by teason of the speed of the train, or the peculiar dangers of the crossing, some earlier signal is dictated by reasonable caution. 1 Rorer, Railroads, 529; Railroad Co. v. Hague, 54 Kan. 284 ( 38 Pac. | 1 | 1902–1902 |
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.