The notification, provided for in section 321.501, shall be in substantially the following
form, to wit:
\n
Tue Dec 09 22:17:01 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 321 (137, 2)
269 MOTOR VEHICLES AND LAW OF THE ROAD, §321.507\n\n To ........................ (Here insert the name of each defendant and
the defendant’s residence or last known place of abode as definitely
as known.)
You will take notice that an original notice of suit against you, a
copy of which is hereto attached, was duly served upon you at Des
Moines, Iowa, by filing a copy of said notice on the ............ day of
................, ............, with the director of transportation of the state of
Iowa.
Dated at ........................, Iowa, this ............ day of ................, ............
....................................
Plaintiff.
By............................
Attorney for plaintiff.
[C31, 35, §5079-d15; C39, §5038.05; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §321.502]
2001 Acts, ch 24, §46
Referred to in §321.504, 321.507, 321.511, 321.556\n\n 321.503 Reserved.
\n
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1962–1998 · leading case:
Johnson v. Brooks, 117 N.W.2d 457 (Iowa 1962).
Johnson v. Brooks, 117 N.W.2d 457 (Iowa 1962).
· cites it 8× “Appellants say he has failed to do so because he was required not only to file a copy of the original notice with the commissioner before the two-year period of the statute, but, having filed it, and after having filed it, he must show he sent a notice thereof to each of the…”
Kraft v. Bahr, 128 N.W.2d 261 (Iowa 1964).
· cites it 4× “) Section 321.502 provides the form of the notification to nonresidents in substantially the following form: “To (Here insert the name of each defendant and his residence or last known place of abode as definitely as known.”
McCormick v. Meyer, 582 N.W.2d 141 (Iowa 1998).
· cites it 2× “They attempted to serve Meyer in June under the nonresident motorist provisions, but they failed to comply with the notice provisions of Iowa Code section 321.502 and the mailed notice to Meyer was not delivered.”
James W. Heeney v. Marjorie E. Miner, 421 F.2d 434 (8th Cir. 1970).
“The basic objection here is that the actual service on defendant was not in compliance with Iowa Code § 321.502 (1966). Plaintiff contends, however, that its January 1969 notification to defendant was in substantial compliance with the Iowa Code.”
Van Gundy v. Ellis, 246 F. Supp. 802 (S.D. Iowa 1965).
· cites it 2× “Although in this instance, amenability to the process of this Court is governed by state law, neither the Iowa statutes nor the rules of this court require rigid adherence to the form of notice set out in Section 321.502, Code of Iowa. Rule 4(d) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure…”
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.