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 2 courts 1981–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Franzen v. Deere and Co.green2 sentences2020“The party pleading an exception to the normal limitations period has the burden to plead and prove the exceptions.” Franzen v. Deere & Co., 334 N.W.2d 730, 732 (Iowa 1983); see also Skadburg v. Gately, 911 N.W.2d 786, 793 (Iowa 2018) (“Although [defendant] has the burden of establishing the statute-of- limitations defense, [plaintiff], as the party attempting to avoid the limitations period, has the burden of demonstrating any exception.”). 1989The Iowa Supreme Court has held that: “The party pleading an exception to the normal limitations period has the burden to plead and prove the exceptions.” Franzen v. Deere and Co., 334 N.W.2d 730, 732 (Iowa 1983). | 3 | 3 |
Conklin v. Townegreen2 sentences1983Brown v. Ellison, 304 N.W.2d 197,200 (Iowa 1981); Conklin v. Towne, 204 Iowa 916, 920 , 216 N.W. 264, 266 (1927). 1983Brown v. Ellison, 304 N.W.2d 197,200 (Iowa 1981); Conklin v. Towne, 204 Iowa 916, 920 , 216 N.W. 264, 266 (1927). | 2 | 2 |
Michelle R. Skadburg v. Gary Gately and Whitfield and Eddy, PLCgreen1 sentence2020“The party pleading an exception to the normal limitations period has the burden to plead and prove the exceptions.” Franzen v. Deere & Co., 334 N.W.2d 730, 732 (Iowa 1983); see also Skadburg v. Gately, 911 N.W.2d 786, 793 (Iowa 2018) (“Although [defendant] has the burden of establishing the statute-of- limitations defense, [plaintiff], as the party attempting to avoid the limitations period, has the burden of demonstrating any exception.”). | 1 | 1 |
Dan Richards v. Michael Mitcheffgreen1 sentence2020We will address the discovery rule and equitable estoppel separately. 3Courts applying federal notice pleading standards recognize that although “complaints need not anticipate or meet potential affirmative defenses,” dismissal on the pleadings is appropriate when the plaintiff’s “allegations show that there is an airtight defense [such that he] has pleaded himself out of court.” Richards v. Mitcheff, 696 F.3d 635, 637, 638 (7th Cir. 2012). 14 1. | 1 | 1 |
Sparks v. Metalcraft, Inc.green1 sentence1988“The party pleading an exception to the normal limitations period has the burden to plead and prove the exceptions.” Franzen v. Deere & Co., 334 N.W.2d 730, 732 (Iowa 1983); accord Sparks, 408 N.W.2d at 350 . | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Ellisongreen1 sentence1983Brown v. Ellison, 304 N.W.2d 197,200 (Iowa 1981); Conklin v. Towne, 204 Iowa 916, 920 , 216 N.W. 264, 266 (1927). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.