5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1939–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Robertsgreen1 sentence2014In addition, “[a]ny conduct, acts, or circumstances offered to show part performance must refer exclusively and unequivocally to the contract.” Davis v. Roberts, 563 N.W.2d 16, 20 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Snater v. Waltersgreen2 sentences2003See Snater v. Walters, 250 Iowa 1189, 1199 , 98 N.W.2d 302, 308 (Iowa 1959) (“Part performance ... under an oral lease for a term of more than one year will not take the case out of the statute of frauds.”). 2003See Snater v. Walters, 250 Iowa 1189, 1199 , 98 N.W.2d 302, 308 (Iowa 1959) (“Part performance ... under an oral lease for a term of more than one year will not take the case out of the statute of frauds.”). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Lawlorgreen2 sentences2003The part performance exception exists to prevent the type of fraud that would occur “if the defendant were permitted to escape performance of his or her part of the oral agreement after permitting the plaintiff to perform in reliance upon the agreement.” 73 Am.Jur.2d Statute of Frauds § 313, at 13 (footnote omitted); see also Miller, 245 Iowa at 1152 , 66 N.W.2d at 272 (part performance actually describes those acts done pursuant to and in reliance upon a contract). 2003The part performance exception exists to prevent the type of fraud that would occur “if the defendant were permitted to escape performance of his or her part of the oral agreement after permitting the plaintiff to perform in reliance upon the agreement.” 73 Am.Jur.2d Statute of Frauds § 313, at 13 (footnote omitted); see also Miller, 245 Iowa at 1152 , 66 N.W.2d at 272 (part performance actually describes those acts done pursuant to and in reliance upon a contract). | 1 | 1 |
Gardner v. Gardnergreen1 sentence2003See Gardner v. Gardner, 454 N.W.2d 361, 363 (Iowa 1990); 10 Samuel Williston & Richard A. Lord, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 28.2, at 268 (4th ed.1999) [hereinafter Williston] (doctrine of part performance originated prior to “doctrine of estoppel by conduct”); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statute of Frauds § 312, at 13 (2001) (doctrine of part performance antedated statute of frauds). | 1 | 1 |
Thorp v. Bradleygreen2 sentences2003Halligan v. Frey, 161 Iowa 185, 188 , 141 N.W. 944, 945 (1913); Thorp v. Bradley, 75 Iowa 50, 52 , 39 N.W. 177, 178 (Iowa 1888). 2003Halligan v. Frey, 161 Iowa 185, 188 , 141 N.W. 944, 945 (1913); Thorp v. Bradley, 75 Iowa 50, 52 , 39 N.W. 177, 178 (Iowa 1888). | 1 | 1 |
Halligan v. Freygreen2 sentences2003Halligan v. Frey, 161 Iowa 185, 188 , 141 N.W. 944, 945 (1913); Thorp v. Bradley, 75 Iowa 50, 52 , 39 N.W. 177, 178 (Iowa 1888). 2003Halligan v. Frey, 161 Iowa 185, 188 , 141 N.W. 944, 945 (1913); Thorp v. Bradley, 75 Iowa 50, 52 , 39 N.W. 177, 178 (Iowa 1888). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fairall v. Arnold
green
2 sentences1971The court reiterated the language of this court in Davis v. Davis, supra, 156 N.W.2d at 876 , “The true basis of the doctrine of part performance, according to the overwhelming weight of authority, lies in the principles of equitable estoppel and fraud; it would be a fraud upon the plaintiff if the defendant were permitted to escape performance of his part of the oral agreement after he has permitted the plaintiff to perform in reliance upon the agreement”, citing Fairall v. Arnold, supra, 226 Iowa at 986 , 285 N.W. at 669 , and from the annotation in 101 A.L.R. 935 . 1971The court reiterated the language of this court in Davis v. Davis, supra, 156 N.W.2d at 876 , “The true basis of the doctrine of part performance, according to the overwhelming weight of authority, lies in the principles of equitable estoppel and fraud; it would be a fraud upon the plaintiff if the defendant were permitted to escape performance of his part of the oral agreement after he has permitted the plaintiff to perform in reliance upon the agreement”, citing Fairall v. Arnold, supra, 226 Iowa at 986 , 285 N.W. at 669 , and from the annotation in 101 A.L.R. 935 . | 2 | 1968–1971 |
Poe v. Ekert
green
1 sentence2003Id. at 365-66, 71 N.W. 579 ; see also E. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Davis v. Davis
green
1 sentence1971The court reiterated the language of this court in Davis v. Davis, supra, 156 N.W.2d at 876 , “The true basis of the doctrine of part performance, according to the overwhelming weight of authority, lies in the principles of equitable estoppel and fraud; it would be a fraud upon the plaintiff if the defendant were permitted to escape performance of his part of the oral agreement after he has permitted the plaintiff to perform in reliance upon the agreement”, citing Fairall v. Arnold, supra, 226 Iowa at 986 , 285 N.W. at 669 , and from the annotation in 101 A.L.R. 935 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
People v Stephens
green
1 sentence1968Fairall v. Arnold, 226 Iowa 977, 986 , 285 N.W.2d 664, 669 , quoting from annotation in 101 A.L.R. 935 . *877 “It has been a long-recognized rule of this court that any conduct, acts, or circumstances offered to show ‘part performance’ in order to bring a case within the exception of the statute of frauds must be referable exclusively and unequivocally to the contract” (Citing cases). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Walter v. Hoffman
green
2 sentences1939R. 935: “The true basis of the doctrine of part performance, according to the overwhelming weight of authority, lies in the principles of equitable estoppel and fraud; it would be a fraud upon the plaintiff if the defendant were permitted to escape performance of his part of the oral agreement after he has permitted the plaintiff to perform in reliance upon the agreement.” (Citing many cases.) Or, as it is sometimes stated, “in an equitable action for specific performance founded upon part performance, ‘the defendant is really “charged” upon the equities resulting from the acts done in executi 1939R. 935: “The true basis of the doctrine of part performance, according to the overwhelming weight of authority, lies in the principles of equitable estoppel and fraud; it would be a fraud upon the plaintiff if the defendant were permitted to escape performance of his part of the oral agreement after he has permitted the plaintiff to perform in reliance upon the agreement.” (Citing many cases.) Or, as it is sometimes stated, “in an equitable action for specific performance founded upon part performance, ‘the defendant is really “charged” upon the equities resulting from the acts done in executi | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.