recognizing a nonconforming sign could be removed for subsequent nonconfor-mance
How later courts described this case
- recognizing a nonconforming sign could be removed for subsequent nonconfor-mance
- “[U]pon noncompliance with the permit requirements ... the[ ] billboards become subject to removal.”
- owner of billboards forced to remove billboards at owner’s expense
- “counsel should have submitted proposed findings or conclusions in accord with said position, or sought an amendment and enlargement of the court’s findings and conclusions under rule 179(b)_”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Estate of Grossman v. McCreary, 1985 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1120 (1985)
272 N.W.2d 6, 13 (Iowa 1978), overruled on other grounds by Estate of Grossman v. McCreary, 373 N.W.2d 113, 114 (1985);
The opinion
UHLENHOPP, Justice
(dissenting from division II).
I do not think we should announce a rule of estoppel of a state department because a district office does not have a required form. Had Nebraska-Iowa Supply written DOT headquarters and been unable to obtain the form, we would have a different case. I stated my views on this subject in Iowa. Movers & Warehousemen's Ass’n v. Briggs, 237 N.W.2d 759 (Iowa). I concur in divisions I and III but dissent from division II.