7 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 1885–2017 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 |
Coster v. Crookhamgreen2 sentences2006See Coster, 468 N.W.2d at 806 (“‘If the trustee in violation of his duty to the beneficiary uses trust property for his own purposes and makes a profit thereby, he is accountable for the profits so made.’” (quoting Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 206 cmt. j)); 76 Am. 2006See Coster, 468 N.W.2d at 806 (“‘If the trustee in violation of his duty to the beneficiary uses trust property-for his own purposes and makes a profit thereby, he is accountable for the profits so made.’ ” (quoting Restatement (Second) of Trusts § 206 cmt. j)); 76 Am.Jur.2d Trusts § 468, at 513 (stating trustee is liable to trust for any losses caused by trustee’s self-dealing). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Internal Energy Management Corp.
green
1 sentence1983Miller, 324 N.W.2d at 714 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Ewalt v. Luna
neutral
2 sentences1970In that vein we refer first to this significant statement in Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, Second Ed., section 951: “A conveyance by the trustee in violation of the trust is clearly a repudiation of it.” Authorities cited in support thereof are Adams v. Holden, 111 Iowa 54 , 82 N.W. 468 , and Ewalt v. Luna, Tex.Civ.App., 316 S.W.2d 804 . 1970In that vein we refer first to this significant statement in Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, Second Ed., section 951: "A conveyance by the trustee in violation of the trust is clearly a repudiation of it." Authorities cited in support thereof are Adams v. Holden, 111 Iowa 54 , 82 N.W. 468 , and Ewalt v. Luna, Tex.Civ.App., 316 S.W.2d 804 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Adams v. Holden
green
2 sentences1970In that vein we refer first to this significant statement in Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, Second Ed., section 951: “A conveyance by the trustee in violation of the trust is clearly a repudiation of it.” Authorities cited in support thereof are Adams v. Holden, 111 Iowa 54 , 82 N.W. 468 , and Ewalt v. Luna, Tex.Civ.App., 316 S.W.2d 804 . 1970In that vein we refer first to this significant statement in Bogert on Trusts and Trustees, Second Ed., section 951: “A conveyance by the trustee in violation of the trust is clearly a repudiation of it.” Authorities cited in support thereof are Adams v. Holden, 111 Iowa 54 , 82 N.W. 468 , and Ewalt v. Luna, Tex.Civ.App., 316 S.W.2d 804 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Newman v. Samuels
green
1 sentence1885Woodruff v. Robb, 19 Ohio, 212; Carrington v. Goddin, 12 Grat., 601; Newman v. Samuels, 17 Iowa, 528 . | 1 | 1885–1885 |
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.