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 1896–1938 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 |
|---|---|---|
Busby v. Busbygreen2 sentences1938See Busby v. Busby, 137 Iowa 57, 61 , 114 N. W. 559 , 561: “The voice of authority is against the presumption of partial intestacy by intention; and where possible such construction will be given a will presented as to work disposition of the entire estate.” This, however, is not the invariable rule, and where the will is plain and the meaning of the testator free from doubt, and property is conveyed for lifetime only, without any gift over, the will can be construed only so as to make the remainder over intestate property. 1938See Busby v. Busby, 137 Iowa 57, 61 , 114 N. W. 559 , 561: “The voice of authority is against the presumption of partial intestacy by intention; and where possible such construction will be given a will presented as to work disposition of the entire estate.” This, however, is not the invariable rule, and where the will is plain and the meaning of the testator free from doubt, and property is conveyed for lifetime only, without any gift over, the will can be construed only so as to make the remainder over intestate property. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Horak v. Stanley
neutral
2 sentences1938In Horack v. Stanley, 216 Iowa 318 , 249 N. W. 166 , this rule was announced, and the language of the court was, in part, as follows: “If the devise be construed as to a life estate only, intestacy as to the fee follows as a matter of course. 1938In Horack v. Stanley, 216 Iowa 318 , 249 N. W. 166 , this rule was announced, and the language of the court was, in part, as follows: “If the devise be construed as to a life estate only, intestacy as to the fee follows as a matter of course. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
House v. Modern Woodmen
neutral
1 sentence1917C. 35, it is held that it would be dangerous to depart from wliat has been deemed the invariable rule of the court, to Avit: "That it is not enough for the applicant to say, 'The accident Avould not have happened if I had not been engaged in this employment, or if I had not been in that particular ;place.’ The applicant must go further, and must say, 'The accident arose because of something I was doing in the course of my employment or because I Avas exposed by the nature of mj’ employment to some pecular danger.’ ” All that House v. Modern Woodmen of America, 165 Iowa 607, at 609 , comes to, | 1 | 1917–1917 |
Hurst v. Detroit City Railway
green
2 sentences1904Several, however, have been made use of — such as whether recovery on the original complaint would bar recovery, under the amended complaint, whether the same evidence would support both, whether the same measure of damages is applicable to both, or both are subject to the sama plea. 1 Encyclopedia Pleading and Practice 556; Hurst v. Ry., 84 Mich. 539 ( 48 N. W. 1904Several, however, have been made use of — such as whether recovery on the original complaint would bar recovery, under the amended complaint, whether the same evidence would support both, whether the same measure of damages is applicable to both, or both are subject to the sama plea. 1 Encyclopedia Pleading and Practice 556; Hurst v. Ry., 84 Mich. 539 ( 48 N. W. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Allison v. Graham
neutral
1 sentence1904As remarked in Herrick v. Musgrove, supra; “The acknowledgment is a provision which the law makes for the security of titles and the protection of property owners from fraud and imposition. ” It is not to be lightly brushed aside by-the testimony of a witness who is unable to recognize her own signature, and whose conduct for thirty-three years, in so far as appears, has been inconsistent with the claim that the signature to the deed was a forgery. — Aieikmeb. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Armil v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R'y Co.
neutral
2 sentences1896In Armil v. Railway Co., 70 Iowa, 130 ( 30 N. W. 1896In Armil v. Railway Co., 70 Iowa, 130 ( 30 N. W. | 1 | 1896–1896 |
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.