7 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1871–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jefferson Savings and Loan Association, Etc. v. Lifetime Savings and Loan Association, Etc.green2 sentences2017Central Bank notes that the participation agreements are “silent to granting a security interest in and to the property, collateral, or underlying loan documentation.” See Jefferson Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Lifetime Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 396 F.2d 21, 24 (9th Cir. 1968) (holding the sale of property by the lead bank was valid and participating banks had the right to either the proceeds of the sale or a claim against the trustee for violation of the participation agreement); Ross v. First Sav. 2017Central Bank notes that the participation agreements are “silent to granting a security interest in and to the property, collateral, or underlying loan documentation.” See Jefferson Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Lifetime Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 396 F.2d 21, 24 (9th Cir. 1968) (holding the sale of property by the lead bank was valid and participating banks had the right to either the proceeds of the sale or a claim against the trustee for violation of the participation agreement); Ross v. First Sav. | 2 | 2 |
Ross v. First Savings Bank of Arlingtongreen2 sentences2017Bank of Arlington, 675 N.W.2d 812, 817 (Iowa 2004) (implying that participating banks did not have any interest in and to the contracts between the lead bank and the consumer); In re Receivership of Mt. 2017Bank of Arlington, 675 N.W.2d 812, 817 (Iowa 2004) (implying that participating banks did not have any interest in and to the contracts between the lead bank and the consumer); In re Receivership of Mt. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Taylorgreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 596 N.W.2d 55, 56 (Iowa 1999); In re B.E., 875 N.W.2d 181, 187 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of B.E., Minor Child, B.E., Fathergreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 596 N.W.2d 55, 56 (Iowa 1999); In re B.E., 875 N.W.2d 181, 187 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,004 United States of America v. Paul F. Kendrickgreen1 sentence1991See also United States v. Kendrick, 692 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir.1982) (pledge of securities constitutes a sale under rule 10(b)-5), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 914 , 103 S.Ct. 1892 , 77 L.Ed.2d 282 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Don't Waste Washington Legal Defense Foundation v. Washingtongreen1 sentence1991See also United States v. Kendrick, 692 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir.1982) (pledge of securities constitutes a sale under rule 10(b)-5), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 914 , 103 S.Ct. 1892 , 77 L.Ed.2d 282 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Pinckard v. Pinckardgreen1 sentence1991See also United States v. Kendrick, 692 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir.1982) (pledge of securities constitutes a sale under rule 10(b)-5), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 914 , 103 S.Ct. 1892 , 77 L.Ed.2d 282 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Randall Division of Textron, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen1 sentence1991See also United States v. Kendrick, 692 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir.1982) (pledge of securities constitutes a sale under rule 10(b)-5), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 914 , 103 S.Ct. 1892 , 77 L.Ed.2d 282 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Corbin v. De Wolfgreen2 sentences1871One subdivision may be sold at a sale, but two cannot; one hundred and sixty acres in one body is one subdivision and, therefore, can be sold at one sale.” “ The point decided in Penn v. Clemans is, that when these subdivisions are assessed separately, or are, in fact, distinct and separate, as two ‘forties’ in different sections, they cannot be sold in gross.” Corbin v. De Wolf, supra. If the deed showed that the land had been assessed to ah unknown owner, in tracts greater than forty acres and so sold, it would show a sale in violation of the statute ; but the deed does not so show, and as i 1871See Corbin v. De Wolf, supra; Eldridge v. Kuehl, 27 Iowa, 160 ; Stewart v. Corbin , 25 id. 144 ; McCready v. Sexton & Son, 29 id. 356; Ware et al. v. Thompson, id. 65. 2..— oonoiudeed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fuller v. Tomlinson Bros.
neutral
1 sentence1920Simonds v. Travis, 13 N. B. 14; Fuller v. Tomlinson Bros., 58 Iowa 111 ; Blanding v. Wilsey, 107 Iowa 46 ; Granite Bank v. Richardson, 7 Metc. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Blanding v. Wilsey
neutral
1 sentence1920Simonds v. Travis, 13 N. B. 14; Fuller v. Tomlinson Bros., 58 Iowa 111 ; Blanding v. Wilsey, 107 Iowa 46 ; Granite Bank v. Richardson, 7 Metc. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
State v. Beneke
neutral
1 sentence1894State v. Beneke, supra. 3 4 It is claimed by defendant that in no event can the remedy by injunction be pursued, because there is an irreconcilable conflict between section 19 and the previous enactments of the legislature giving this remedy. | 1 | 1894–1894 |
Eldridge v. Kuehl
green
2 sentences1871See Corbin v. De Wolf, supra; Eldridge v. Kuehl, 27 Iowa, 160 ; Stewart v. Corbin , 25 id. 144 ; McCready v. Sexton & Son, 29 id. 356; Ware et al. v. Thompson, id. 65. 2..— oonoiudeed. 1871See Corbin v. De Wolf, supra; Eldridge v. Kuehl, 27 Iowa, 160 ; Stewart v. Corbin , 25 id. 144 ; McCready v. Sexton & Son, 29 id. 356; Ware et al. v. Thompson, id. 65. 2..— oonoiudeed. | 1 | 1871–1871 |
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.