Iowa Code
Iowa Code § 573.10 (2026)
Time of filing claims
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Claims may be filed with said officer as follows: 1. At any time before the expiration of thirty days immediately following the completion and final acceptance of the improvement. 2. At any time after said thirty-day period, if the public corporation has not paid the full contract price as herein authorized, and no action is pending to adjudicate rights in and to the unpaid portion of the contract price. [C97, §3102; S13, §1989-a57; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §10308; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §573.10]\n\nTue Dec 09 22:00:41 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 573 (24, 1) §573.11, LABOR AND MATERIAL ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 4
\nNotes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. City of Marion, 577 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1998).
Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. City of Marion, 577 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1998). “Iowa Code § 573.10 (1) (emphasis added). Iowa Code section 573.”
Nw. Limestone Co. v. State Dep't of Transp., 499 N.W.2d 8 (Iowa 1993). “” Iowa Code § 573.10 (1). Both of these claims were filed in May 1990, and completion and final acceptance did not take place until June 28, 1990.”
L & W Constr. Co. v. Kinser, 99 N.W.2d 276 (Iowa 1959). “The plaintiff conceded it had not filed its claim with the commission within thirty days after the acceptance of the work, as required by section 573.10 and that it had not commenced an action on the bond within sixty days thereafter, as required by section 573.”
Accurate Controls, Inc. v. Cerro Gordo Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 627 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Iowa 2009). “e specifically, that invoices furnished after completion of the portion of the project involving the claimant’s materials but before completion of the overall project is untimely under this alternative; and that the provision must be interpreted with the goal of providing…”
Payne Drywall, LLC v. Bi-State Contracting, Inc., & E. Iowa Cmty. Coll. Dist. (Iowa Ct. App. 2025). “The subcontractor appeals, contending the court should have applied the relation-back doctrine, misinterpreted Iowa Code section 573.10 or, alternatively, overlooked evidence to support an equitable estoppel claim.”
Cmty. Sch. Dist. of Eldora v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co. of Des Moines, 194 F. Supp. 733 (N.D. Iowa 1961). “Section 573.10 of that Chapter provides, in part: “Claims may be filed * * * “1.”
Rochon Corp. of Iowa, Inc. n/k/a Graphite Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Des Moines Area Cmty. Coll. (Iowa 2024). “§ 573.10(1). But see id. §§ 573.10(2) 3Section 573.”
Cmty. Sch. Dist. of Eldora v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co., 194 F. Supp. 733 (N.D. Iowa 1961). “Section 573.10 of that Chapter provides, in part: "Claims may be filed * * * "1.”
— Iowa Code § 573.10(1) — 3 cases
Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. City of Marion, 577 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1998). “Iowa Code § 573.10 (1) (emphasis added). Iowa Code section 573.”
Payne Drywall, LLC v. Bi-State Contracting, Inc., & E. Iowa Cmty. Coll. Dist. (Iowa Ct. App. 2025). “The subcontractor appeals, contending the court should have applied the relation-back doctrine, misinterpreted Iowa Code section 573.10 or, alternatively, overlooked evidence to support an equitable estoppel claim.”
Rochon Corp. of Iowa, Inc. n/k/a Graphite Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Des Moines Area Cmty. Coll. (Iowa 2024). “§ 573.10(1). But see id. §§ 573.10(2) 3Section 573.”
— Iowa Code § 573.10(2) — 3 cases
Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. City of Marion, 577 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1998). “Iowa Code § 573.10 (1) (emphasis added). Iowa Code section 573.”
Nw. Limestone Co. v. State Dep't of Transp., 499 N.W.2d 8 (Iowa 1993). “” Iowa Code § 573.10 (1). Both of these claims were filed in May 1990, and completion and final acceptance did not take place until June 28, 1990.”
Rochon Corp. of Iowa, Inc. n/k/a Graphite Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Des Moines Area Cmty. Coll. (Iowa 2024). “§ 573.10(1). But see id. §§ 573.10(2) 3Section 573.”
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.