Case law

Estate of Harris v. Papa John's Pizza

679 N.W.2d 673 · Supreme Court of Iowa · May 12, 2004

In the district court, Papa John’s argued the Estate could not establish that it took adverse employment action against Harris. … The employer claimed the exclusivity provision of the IWCA immunized it from common law claims. Id. We ruled the sole remedy for the employee was in workers’ compensation. Id.

State v. Gartin

271 N.W.2d 902 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Nov 22, 1978

Deets, 195 N.W.2d 118, 121 (Iowa 1972) we stated: “At the threshold we are satisfied a grand jury, though generally characterized as an inquisitorial and accusatorial body, clearly qualifies as a tribunal created by law. … The action complained of must have been unreasonable in the light of attendant circumstances— the discretion must have been exercised for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable [and] the action must

State v. Murphy

451 N.W.2d 154 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jan 24, 1990

Such testimony about the legal standard of proof, combined with a recitation of the elements of the offense, clearly invaded the province of the jury and the court. … In summary, Officer Jones was fully qualified to testify to his specialized knowledge.

Brubaker v. Estate of Delong

700 N.W.2d 323 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 8, 2005

Each order granting Brubaker an extension clearly and unambiguously informed her the court would dismiss her case if she did not obtain service in the allotted time. … Amoco Oil Co., 581 N.W.2d 597, 599 (Iowa 1998) (affirming dismissal of an action due to plaintiffs’ failure to comply with a court order establishing deadline for retaining new counsel).

Peoples Gas & Electric Co. v. State Tax Commission

238 Iowa 1369 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Sep 16, 1947

But in its narrower or technical meaning the term presupposes a liability and a grant of immunity therefrom. 61 C. J., Taxation, section 382. … But * * * if proof fairly establishes that there is an actual, material difference between the domestic and the foreign article, the purchaser of the latter is not liable for use tax.”

Raridan v. Central Iowa R'y Co.

69 Iowa 527 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Oct 13, 1886

We are of the opinion, however, that, under the established facts, this rule is not applicable to this particular pliase of the case. … The action of the circuit court in excluding the evidence is clearly right. *531 i. EVIDENCE : corn-stalkseompeteney. *530 IY.

Hoehl v. City of Muscatine

57 Iowa 444 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Dec 15, 1881

Taking these two instructions together the meaning of the court is not clearly apparent. … This instruction is clearly erroneous.

Cook v. Consolidated School District

240 Iowa 744 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 14, 1949

voters reside; a qualified elector must file an affidavit as to the number of qualified electors in each county. … The legislature clearly intended that-section 4191 should use the procedure-of sections 4141 and 4142 in enlarging independent city and town districts, but just as clearly and just as logically it intended that the provisions

Board of Directors v. Board of Supervisors

228 Iowa 544 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 18, 1940

The result then is precisely as it would have been had the trust been vested in any other individual, group or corporation qualified by law to act. … W. 824, 826 , is concerned with a bequest for the establishment of a seminary of learning in Dallas county.

State v. Lohr

266 N.W.2d 1 · Supreme Court of Iowa · May 17, 1978

In most if not all of these cases, however, extrinsic construction aids clearly demonstrated extension of the modifier to several antecedents was legislatively intended. … But here we must decide whether the statute is mandatory or directory; i. e., should failure to perform the established duty have been remedied by sustaining Lohr’s jury panel challenge?

Nicolls v. Wetmore

174 Iowa 132 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Feb 12, 1916

That contracts of this nature are clearly-lacking in mutuality has been held in Velie v. Kopmeier, 114 C. C. A. 284 ; Oakland v. Indiana Auto. Co., *137 121 C. C. A. 319 ; and Goodyear v. Koehler, 143 N. Y. Supp. 1046 . … By their answer and counterclaim, also, they concede that the deposit belongs to the plaintiff unless they establish their right to apply the same upon this claim for alleged loss of profits upon the five cars mentioned in

American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Allied Mutual Insurance Co.

562 N.W.2d 159 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Apr 23, 1997

Maassen moved for summary judgment against Allied in an effort to establish Maassen’s attorney fees in the recovery of Allied’s $5000. … Mark Van Otterloo qualifies as a borrower. There is no suggestion he was using the vehicle without his father’s permission and he clearly was “moving property to or from” a “covered auto” as required by the policy.

Croft v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.

134 Iowa 411 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Nov 14, 1906

The answers of McSwiggin were simple and straightforward, and brought him clearly within the rule of qualification. This may also be said of Duge. … It is not material that, in giving his answers, the latter used the qualifying word “ guess ”— a word technically implying doubt.

In the Matter of the Condemnation of Certain Rights in Land for the Extension of Armar Drive Project by the City of Marion, Iowa, Phyllis M. Rausch, Trustee of the William J. Rausch Family Trust v. City of Marion, Iowa

Supreme Court of Iowa · May 6, 2022

Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 628 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2001) (en banc). “ ‘An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court “exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” ’ ” Id. … The fighting issue in this case is whether James was qualified to establish that the three sales of commercial property he identified were comparable.

Matter of Estate of Dodge

281 N.W.2d 447 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 25, 1979

Dodge, who died in 1954, provided for the establishment of several trusts. … Several trusts were established by the will in question, all subject to the spendthrift clause.

In the Matter of the Condemnation of Certain Rights in Land for the Extension of Armar Drive Project by the City of Marion, Iowa, Phyllis M. Rausch, Trustee of the William J. Rausch Family Trust v. City of Marion, Iowa

Supreme Court of Iowa · May 6, 2022

Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 628 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2001) (en banc). “ ‘An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court “exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” ’ ” Id. … The fighting issue in this case is whether James was qualified to establish that the three sales of commercial property he identified were comparable.

Hill v. Havens

242 Iowa 920 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jul 10, 1951

Havens was not a proper subject for inquiry in this manner, we shall say only that a review of the evidence indicates clearly that plaintiffs must have failed to establish a resulting trust by the prescribed measure of proof … The latter quotation is so clearly phrased and so cogent that we call special attention to it again.

Valentine v. Independent School District of Casey

191 Iowa 1100 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 25, 1921

The issuance of a diploma by the school board to a person who satisfactorily completes the prescribed course of study, and who is otherwise qualified, is mandatory; and, although such duty is not expressly enjoined upon the … This action of the board involved judgment and discretion, and therefore, under the well-established rule, it was not subject to mandatory review. The instant case is clearly distinguishable.

State of Iowa v. Vanessa Renae Gale

Supreme Court of Iowa · May 16, 2025

Gale argued on appeal for the first time that her sentence was illegal because she did not have a prior conviction to establish a predicate offense under § 124.401(5). … That judgment order clearly states that Gale’s conviction was for possession of prescription drugs without a prescription in violation of Iowa Code  9 § 155A.21.

Jameson v. Joint Drainage District No. 3

191 Iowa 920 · Supreme Court of Iowa · Jun 25, 1921

Tbe boards of supervisors of Dickinson and Osceola Counties, on or about October 3, 1916, acting jointly, *921 approved the commissioners’ report of the preliminary survey thereof, and established a drainage district to be … The reference by Salisbury, in his proposal, to a schedule is to the one inclosed therewith, and relates only to the prices to be charged for overdig, and clearly does not refer to the schedule of prices which the board required