The evidence in actions cognizable in equity shall be presented on appeal to the appellate
court, which shall try such causes anew. However, upon further review by the supreme court
of equity actions heard by the court of appeals the review may be limited in scope as provided
in the rules of appellate procedure.
[R60, §2999; C73, §2742; C97, §3652; S13, §3652; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §11433; C46, 50, 54,
58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §624.4]
\n
Notes of Decisions
Graham v. Worthington, 146 N.W.2d 626 (Iowa 1966).
· cites it 4× “In asserting propositions relied on for reversal he contends the trial court erred in holding the Act did not violate the following provisions of the Constitution of Iowa: Article I, section 6; Article III, section 1; Article III, section 24; Article III, section 29; Article…”
Guldberg v. Greenfield, 146 N.W.2d 298 (Iowa 1966).
· cites it 2× “Code section 624.4; rule 334, Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Kruck v. Needles, 144 N.W.2d 296 (Iowa 1966).
· cites it 2× “Code section 624.4; Rules of Civil Procedure 267, 334.”
Decker v. Juzwik, 121 N.W.2d 652 (Iowa 1963).
· cites it 2× “670 ; Rule 334, Rules of Civil Procedure; section 624.4, Code of Iowa, 1962; 49 Am.”
Vawter v. McKissick, 159 N.W.2d 538 (Iowa 1968).
· cites it 2× “Rule 344(f) (7), R.C.P. When we give weight to the trial court’s findings here we are not justified in disturbing them.”
Bridgman v. Curry, 398 N.W.2d 167 (Iowa 1986).
· cites it 2× “2d 551, 556 (Iowa 1984); Iowa Code § 624.4 (1985); Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(7).”
Peterson v. Petersen, 355 N.W.2d 26 (Iowa 1984).
· cites it 2× “While there was considerable evidence that Ross agreed to give an interest in the “project” or in the “net” from the parties’ Decorah venture, there was little evidence that Ross agreed to convey an interest in the real estate itself.”
City of Cedar Falls v. Sieglaff, 144 N.W.2d 116 (Iowa 1966).
· cites it 2× “1 through 5 have been duly instituted and carried out. If these two findings are made “the court shall decree the annexation.”
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.