# Hawkeye Security Insurance Co. v. Ford Motor Co.

> Supreme Court of Iowa · June 29, 1972 · 199 N.W.2d 373

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9591963

## Case

- **Full name:** HAWKEYE SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Appellant, v. KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** June 29, 1972
- **Citations:** 199 N.W.2d 373; 1972 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 869
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Rawlings
- **Judges:** Rees, Uhlenhopp, Rey-Noldson, McCormick, Rawlings, Moore, Mason, Harris
- **Cited by:** 51 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9591963

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that in reviewing “the sufficiency of the content of the notice,” we will entertain an issue on appeal if the decision or issue can be fairly inferred from the notice and the appellee has not been misled or prejudiced by the notice
- observing not many cases will involve both theories presented sufficiently for consideration by a jury

## Opinion text

RAWLINGS, Justice
(dissenting in part, concurring in part).
I. Being unable to agree with the reasoning or result reached in Division I of the majority opinion I respectfully dissent.
In my humble opinion Rule 336 says what it means, and under prior decisions of this court means what it says. If the rule is wrong it should be corrected by orderly revision, not by a judicial declaration which can lead to needless confusion.
As “relaxed” by the majority, rule 336 is now made relatively meaningless. It leaves practicing lawyers little of substance by which to be guided in taking an appeal and may well place on this court the endless task of resolving many if not all “substantial compliance” controversies on a case by case basis. In effect, the majority now says any notice will suffice if the opposition is thereby told an appeal is being taken.
Pending a studied and understandable revision of rule 336, I submit we should adhere to our holding in Schrader v. Sioux City, 167 N.W.2d 669, 672-673 (Iowa), and citations.
I would dismiss the instant appeal for want of a jurisdictionally adequate notice.
II. Without abandoning that position I yield to the will of the majority, thereby acknowledging the instant case is before us for review, and concur in Divisions II through V and the result reached.
MOORE, C. J., and MASON and HARRIS, JJ., join in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9591963. Public record. Not legal advice.