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.
5 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 1901–1983 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maier v. Illinois Central Railroad Companygreen2 sentences1983In Maier v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 234 N.W.2d 388 (Iowa 1975), we reviewed the previously quoted statutes and then restated the evaluation of our common law as follows: Case law on a railroad’s duty to give warnings in addition to minimum statutory requirements has become well settled. 1982Prior to the amendment in question our settled rules for particularly or extraordinarily hazardous crossings were well understood. 1 In Maier v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 234 N.W.2d 388, 391 (Iowa 1975), we summarized them as follows: Case law on a railroad’s duty to give warnings in addition to minimum statutory requirements has become well settled. | 1 | 2 |
Wickman v. Illinois Central Railroad Companygreen2 sentences1983It was summarized in Wickman v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 253 Iowa 912, 917 , 114 N.W.2d 627, 629-30 (1962) as follows: ... [A] railroad company is not required to install a signaling device or station a flagman at every railway crossing.. .. [Statutory requirements for warnings at railway crossing as the crossbucks, ringing the bell and blowing the whistle, are minimum only; ... conditions may exist which require more. 1983It was summarized in Wickman v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 253 Iowa 912, 917 , 114 N.W.2d 627, 629-30 (1962) as follows: ... [A] railroad company is not required to install a signaling device or station a flagman at every railway crossing.. .. [Statutory requirements for warnings at railway crossing as the crossbucks, ringing the bell and blowing the whistle, are minimum only; ... conditions may exist which require more. | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Snowgreen2 sentences1901See Adams v. Snow, 106 Wis. 152 ( 81 N. W. 1901See Adams v. Snow, 106 Wis. 152 ( 81 N. W. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arenson v. Butterworth
green
2 sentences1956Arenson v. Butterworth, 243 Iowa 880 , 54 N.W.2d 557 . 1956Arenson v. Butterworth, 243 Iowa 880 , 54 N.W.2d 557 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Handlon v. Henshaw
green
2 sentences1956In discussing that duty we quoted with approval from Handlon v. Henshaw, 206 Iowa 771, 773 , 221 N.W. 489, 490 , as follows: “It cannot be held, as a matter of law in every case, that an auto driver is absolved from giving a signal on approaching a pedestrian on a highway on the theory that the pedestrian saw the vehicle immediately prior to the collision.” Certainly then, it cannot be held as a matter of law in every ease that an automobile driver is absolved of the duty to give a warning signal on approaching a pedestrian on the highway in plain sight on the testimony of the motorist that th 1956In discussing that duty we quoted with approval from Handlon v. Henshaw, 206 Iowa 771, 773 , 221 N.W. 489, 490 , as follows: “It cannot be held, as a matter of law in every case, that an auto driver is absolved from giving a signal on approaching a pedestrian on a highway on the theory that the pedestrian saw the vehicle immediately prior to the collision.” Certainly then, it cannot be held as a matter of law in every ease that an automobile driver is absolved of the duty to give a warning signal on approaching a pedestrian on the highway in plain sight on the testimony of the motorist that th | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Hendrickson v. United States Gypsum Co.
neutral
1 sentence1910Hendrickson v. U. S. Gypsum Co., 133 Iowa, 89 . | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.