# Iowa Department of Transportation v. Nebraska-Iowa Supply Co.

> Supreme Court of Iowa · November 22, 1978 · 272 N.W.2d 6

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728825

## Case

- **Full name:** IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant, v. NEBRASKA-IOWA SUPPLY COMPANY, Appellee; IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee, v. RIVERS ADVERTISING COMPANY, Paul P. Felton, Greta Felton and Lorna B. McKeown, Appellants
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** November 22, 1978
- **Citations:** 272 N.W.2d 6; 1978 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 973
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Uhlenhopp
- **Judges:** Uhlenhopp, Rees, Uhlen-Hopp, Harris, Allbee, Larson
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by Estate of Grossman v. McCreary, 1985 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1120 (1985).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728825

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing a nonconforming sign could be removed for subsequent nonconfor-mance

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9728825. Public record. Not legal advice.