Legal Opinion · Dissent

Anderson v. Armstrong

Court of Appeals of Iowa

Decided January 31, 1978No. 2-60122Published

1DissentDonielson, Judge

I disagree with the result reached by the majority because I would answer the question posed by II. A. of the majority opinion in the affirmative. Although the majority correctly states that the plaintiff has the burden of proof on this issue, rule 14(f)(5), Rules of Appellate Procedure, it fails to take into account the other rigorous legal standards which govern our analysis of this issue. The law is settled that in an action for the specific performance of an oral contract for the conveyance of real estate, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the existence of the contract by…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Severson v. Elberon Elevator, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1977
  2. Vanston v. RupeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953
  3. Tri-States Investment Company v. HenrysonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1970
  4. Hastie v. Van MeterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1971

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API