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 1904–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sisters of Mercy v. Lightnergreen2 sentences2020“However, gifts to charitable uses do not come within the prohibition of the rule.” Id. 1953Phillips v. Harrow, 93 Iowa 92, 106, 107 , 61 N.W. 434 ; Chapman v. Newell, 146 Iowa 415, 419 , 125 N.W. 324 ; In re Estate of Cleven, 161 Iowa 289, 294, 295 , 142 N.W. 986 ; Wilson v. First National Bank, supra, 164 Iowa 402, 412 ; Sisters of Mercy v. Lightner, 223 Iowa 1049, 1059, 1060 , 274 N.W. 86, 92 , wherein the court, speaking of our statute against restraint of alienation of property, said: “However, gifts to charitable uses do not come within the prohibition of the rule. | 1 | 3 |
Phillips v. Harrowgreen2 sentences1953Phillips v. Harrow, 93 Iowa 92, 106, 107 , 61 N.W. 434 ; Chapman v. Newell, 146 Iowa 415, 419 , 125 N.W. 324 ; In re Estate of Cleven, 161 Iowa 289, 294, 295 , 142 N.W. 986 ; Wilson v. First National Bank, supra, 164 Iowa 402, 412 ; Sisters of Mercy v. Lightner, 223 Iowa 1049, 1059, 1060 , 274 N.W. 86, 92 , wherein the court, speaking of our statute against restraint of alienation of property, said: “However, gifts to charitable uses do not come within the prohibition of the rule. 1953Phillips v. Harrow, 93 Iowa 92, 106, 107 , 61 N.W. 434 ; Chapman v. Newell, 146 Iowa 415, 419 , 125 N.W. 324 ; In re Estate of Cleven, 161 Iowa 289, 294, 295 , 142 N.W. 986 ; Wilson v. First National Bank, supra, 164 Iowa 402, 412 ; Sisters of Mercy v. Lightner, 223 Iowa 1049, 1059, 1060 , 274 N.W. 86, 92 , wherein the court, speaking of our statute against restraint of alienation of property, said: “However, gifts to charitable uses do not come within the prohibition of the rule. | 1 | 2 |
In re the Estate of Clevengreen2 sentences1953Phillips v. Harrow, 93 Iowa 92, 106, 107 , 61 N.W. 434 ; Chapman v. Newell, 146 Iowa 415, 419 , 125 N.W. 324 ; In re Estate of Cleven, 161 Iowa 289, 294, 295 , 142 N.W. 986 ; Wilson v. First National Bank, supra, 164 Iowa 402, 412 ; Sisters of Mercy v. Lightner, 223 Iowa 1049, 1059, 1060 , 274 N.W. 86, 92 , wherein the court, speaking of our statute against restraint of alienation of property, said: “However, gifts to charitable uses do not come within the prohibition of the rule. 1953Phillips v. Harrow, 93 Iowa 92, 106, 107 , 61 N.W. 434 ; Chapman v. Newell, 146 Iowa 415, 419 , 125 N.W. 324 ; In re Estate of Cleven, 161 Iowa 289, 294, 295 , 142 N.W. 986 ; Wilson v. First National Bank, supra, 164 Iowa 402, 412 ; Sisters of Mercy v. Lightner, 223 Iowa 1049, 1059, 1060 , 274 N.W. 86, 92 , wherein the court, speaking of our statute against restraint of alienation of property, said: “However, gifts to charitable uses do not come within the prohibition of the rule. | 1 | 2 |
Baty v. City of West Des Moinesgreen2 sentences1985The prohibition in the rule is against the parties stipulating a continuance themselves.”); see Baty v. City of West Des Moines, 259 Iowa 1017, 1025 , 147 N.W.2d 204, 209 (1966); Talbot v. Talbot, 255 Iowa 337, 339 , 122 N.W.2d 456, 458 (1963). 1985The prohibition in the rule is against the parties stipulating a continuance themselves.”); see Baty v. City of West Des Moines, 259 Iowa 1017, 1025 , 147 N.W.2d 204, 209 (1966); Talbot v. Talbot, 255 Iowa 337, 339 , 122 N.W.2d 456, 458 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
Talbot v. Talbotgreen2 sentences1985The prohibition in the rule is against the parties stipulating a continuance themselves.”); see Baty v. City of West Des Moines, 259 Iowa 1017, 1025 , 147 N.W.2d 204, 209 (1966); Talbot v. Talbot, 255 Iowa 337, 339 , 122 N.W.2d 456, 458 (1963). 1985The prohibition in the rule is against the parties stipulating a continuance themselves.”); see Baty v. City of West Des Moines, 259 Iowa 1017, 1025 , 147 N.W.2d 204, 209 (1966); Talbot v. Talbot, 255 Iowa 337, 339 , 122 N.W.2d 456, 458 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chapman v. Newell
green
2 sentences1953Phillips v. Harrow, 93 Iowa 92, 106, 107 , 61 N.W. 434 ; Chapman v. Newell, 146 Iowa 415, 419 , 125 N.W. 324 ; In re Estate of Cleven, 161 Iowa 289, 294, 295 , 142 N.W. 986 ; Wilson v. First National Bank, supra, 164 Iowa 402, 412 ; Sisters of Mercy v. Lightner, 223 Iowa 1049, 1059, 1060 , 274 N.W. 86, 92 , wherein the court, speaking of our statute against restraint of alienation of property, said: “However, gifts to charitable uses do not come within the prohibition of the rule. 1953Phillips v. Harrow, 93 Iowa 92, 106, 107 , 61 N.W. 434 ; Chapman v. Newell, 146 Iowa 415, 419 , 125 N.W. 324 ; In re Estate of Cleven, 161 Iowa 289, 294, 295 , 142 N.W. 986 ; Wilson v. First National Bank, supra, 164 Iowa 402, 412 ; Sisters of Mercy v. Lightner, 223 Iowa 1049, 1059, 1060 , 274 N.W. 86, 92 , wherein the court, speaking of our statute against restraint of alienation of property, said: “However, gifts to charitable uses do not come within the prohibition of the rule. | 3 | 1937–1953 |
Wilson v. First National Bank
green
2 sentences1953Phillips v. Harrow, 93 Iowa 92, 106-107 , 61 N.W. 434 ; Chapman v. Newell, 146 Iowa 415, 419 , 125 N.W. 324 ; In re Estate of Cleven, 161 Iowa 289, 294-295 , 142 N.W. 986 ; Wilson v. First Nat'l Bank of Independence, supra, 164 Iowa 402, 412 , 145 N.W. 948 ; Sisters of Mercy of Cedar Rapids v. Lightner, 223 Iowa 1049, 1059-1060 , 274 N.W. 86, 92 , wherein the court, speaking of our statute against restraint of alienation of property, said: "However, gifts to charitable uses do not come within the prohibition of the rule. 1953Phillips v. Harrow, 93 Iowa 92, 106, 107 , 61 N.W. 434 ; Chapman v. Newell, 146 Iowa 415, 419 , 125 N.W. 324 ; In re Estate of Cleven, 161 Iowa 289, 294, 295 , 142 N.W. 986 ; Wilson v. First National Bank, supra, 164 Iowa 402, 412 ; Sisters of Mercy v. Lightner, 223 Iowa 1049, 1059, 1060 , 274 N.W. 86, 92 , wherein the court, speaking of our statute against restraint of alienation of property, said: “However, gifts to charitable uses do not come within the prohibition of the rule. | 2 | 1953–1953 |
Beck v. Alabama
green
1 sentence1991Id. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Gold-Mining Co. v. National Bank
green
2 sentences1904But, even if he is to be treated as a borrower with' reference to the sums of the notes thus transferred, he could not himself set, up the violation of this prohibition as a defense, Gold Mining Co. v. National Bank, 96 U. S. 640 ( 24 L. 1904But, even if he is to be treated as a borrower with' reference to the sums of the notes thus transferred, he could not himself set, up the violation of this prohibition as a defense, Gold Mining Co. v. National Bank, 96 U. S. 640 ( 24 L. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
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.