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 1973–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harrop v. Kellergreen2 sentences1979Cf. Harrop v. Keller, 253 N.W.2d 588 , 592 — 93 (Iowa 1977) (dram shop notice requirement purpose parallel to section 613A.5). 1977More to the point, this court said, 253 N.W.2d at 592 -593: “The purpose of the notice requirement of § 123.93 becomes important. | 2 | 3 |
Beneficial Finance Co. of Black Hawk County v. Reedgreen1 sentence2020Co. of Black Hawk Cty. v. Reed, 212 N.W.2d 454, 459 (Iowa 1973) (“The purpose of notice is to permit the debtor to bid at the sale or to protect [itself] from an inadequate sale price.”); accord Knierim v. First State Bank, 488 N.W.2d 454, 457 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) 10 (considering if notice was adequate to permit the debtor to purchase the property when determining whether the purpose of the notice requirement was frustrated). | 1 | 1 |
Knierim v. First State Bankgreen1 sentence2020Co. of Black Hawk Cty. v. Reed, 212 N.W.2d 454, 459 (Iowa 1973) (“The purpose of notice is to permit the debtor to bid at the sale or to protect [itself] from an inadequate sale price.”); accord Knierim v. First State Bank, 488 N.W.2d 454, 457 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) 10 (considering if notice was adequate to permit the debtor to purchase the property when determining whether the purpose of the notice requirement was frustrated). | 1 | 1 |
Stensel v. Stenselgreen2 sentences1985Applicability of the exception to chattels is rare: “Its obvious intent was to apply to securities in a rapidly falling market, or any other item, such as gold bullion, which is subject to price fluctuations on a daily basis.” Stensel v. Stensel, 63 Ill.App.3d 639, 641 , 380 N.E.2d 526, 528 (1978). 1985Applicability of the exception to chattels is rare: “Its obvious intent was to apply to securities in a rapidly falling market, or any other item, such as gold bullion, which is subject to price fluctuations on a daily basis.” Stensel v. Stensel, 63 Ill.App.3d 639, 641 , 380 N.E.2d 526, 528 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mid-States Sales Companygreen1 sentence1985The purpose of the notice requirement is to give parties an opportunity to protect their interests at sale, and the exception applies “only if the giving of such opportunity would probably result in a loss of or substantial decline in value of the collateral.” United States v. Mid-States Sales Company, 336 F.Supp. 1099, 1103 (D.Neb.1971). | 1 | 1 |
Norland v. City of Mason Citygreen2 sentences1973Norland v. Mason City, 199 N.W. 2d 316, 318 (Iowa 1972). 1973Norland v. Mason City, 199 N.W. 2d 316, 318 (Iowa 1972). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lunday Ex Rel. Lunday v. Vogelmann
green
2 sentences1979We have said the purpose of the notice requirement is “to provide a method of prompt communication of time, place and circumstances of injury so the municipality can investigate while facts are fresh.” Lunday, 213 N.W.2d at 907 . 1978Lunday v. Vogelmann, 213 N.W.2d 904 (Iowa). | 2 | 1978–1979 |
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.