out-of-pocket rule (Iowa) · Go Syfert
← Iowa issues

out-of-pocket rule in Iowa

5 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2009 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Cornell v. Wunschelgreen
iowa · 1987 · cited in 2 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1991–2009
2 sentences

2009“The purpose of the benefit-of-the-bargain rule is to put the defrauded party „in the same financial position as if the fraudulent misrepresentation had been in fact true.‟” Cornell, 408 N.W.2d at 380 (citation omitted).

2009The McDonalds note that in Cornell v. Wunschel, 408 N.W.2d 369, 380 (Iowa 1987), in addressing a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, the Iowa Supreme Court determined that in some circumstances the out-of-pocket rule, instead of the benefit-of-the-bargain rule, should apply.

12
Salter v. Heisergreen
wash · 1951 · cited in 1 Iowa opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987
2 sentences

1987Salter v. Heiser, 39 Wash.2d at 834 , 239 P.2d at 331-32 (net operating loss is recoverable under the benefit-of-the-bargain rule, however).

1987Salter v. Heiser, 39 Wash.2d at 834 , 239 P.2d at 331-32 (net operating loss is recoverable under the benefit-of-the-bargain rule, however).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Midwest Home Distributor, Inc. v. Domco Industries Ltd. green
iowa · 1998
2 sentences

2009Id.

2009Id.

32009–2009

Where else courts name it

NY 26 (1964–2026) CA 14 (1955–2022) MN 8 (1964–2017) HI 6 (2015–2024) IA 5 (1987–2009) ID 5 (1953–2021) MA 2 (1960–1986) MS 2 (1998–2000) GA 2 (2008–2016) WI 2 (1994–1999)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check