Iowa Code » Chapter 123 — ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL
Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 123.110 (2026)

Proof of sale

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall not be necessary in every case to prove payment in order to prove a sale within the meaning and intent of this chapter. [R60, §1569; C73, §1549; C97, §2424; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §1957; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, §126.12; C73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §123.110]

\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2021 · leading case: Rhonda BANWART, Appellant, v. 50TH STREET SPORTS, L.L.C. D/B/A Draught House 50, Appellee., 910 N.W.2d 540 (Iowa 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rhonda BANWART, Appellant, v. 50TH STREET SPORTS, L.L.C. D/B/A Draught House 50, Appellee., 910 N.W.2d 540 (Iowa 2018). · cites it 4× “at 74 (quoting Iowa Code § 123.110 ). Based on the fact the AIP was holding a beer bottle in the bar, we found a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether the bar sold and served the AIP the beer.”
Smith v. Shagnasty's Inc., 688 N.W.2d 67 (Iowa 2004). · cites it 2× “Shagnasty’s does not dispute that it is such an establishment. For these reasons, the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Shag-nasty’s on the “sold and served” element of Smith’s dramshop claim was improper.”
Amended July 14, 2015 Joseph H. Sanford & Suzanna L. Sanford v. Lynn Fillenwarth & Julie Fillenwarth, as Executors of the Est. of Kenneth Fillenwarth, & James Lawler v. Cari Lawler, John Lawler, Matt Lawler, Michael Lawler, &..., 863 N.W.2d 286 (Iowa 2015). · cites it 2× “2d 67, 73-74 (Iowa 2004); see also Iowa Code § 123.110 (2011) (“It shall not be necessary in every case to prove payment in order to prove a sale within the meaning and intent of this chapter”).”
Michelle Gorden v. Mitchell Enter., L.L.C. D/B/A \Cheers\"" (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “12-1455, 2013 WL 2637173 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. June 12, 2013) (“The [dramshop] cases indicate that some type of consideration or detriment by the purchaser is required for a sale to have occurred.”
McKinnon Q. Pangburn v. Rookies, Inc. d/b/a Rookies Sports Bar (Iowa Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “Section 123.110 provided: “It shall not be necessary in every case to prove payment in order to prove a sale within the meaning and intent of this chapter.”
Joseph H. Sanford & Suzanna L. Sanford v. Lynn Fillenwarth & Julie Fillenwarth, as Executors of the Est. of Kenneth Fillenwarth, & James Lawler v. Cari Lawler, John Lawler, Matt Lawler, Michael Lawler, & Terry Lawler, Third (Iowa 2015). · cites it 2× “2d 67 , 73–74 (Iowa 2004); see also Iowa Code § 123.110 (2011) (“It shall not be necessary in every case to prove payment in order to prove a sale within the meaning and intent of this chapter.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.