Legal Opinion

Wright v. Standard Oil Co. (Indiana)

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided July 28, 1944No. 46523PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWennerstrum, J.

Plaintiff seeks in an injunction action ike abatement of a claimed nuisance, which is caused, as claimed in plaintiff’s substituted petition, by the operation by defendant of a gasoline and oil filling station in Corydon, Iowa. The defend ant in its answer and in a preliminary hearing in the district court raised the proposition that Lee Middlebrook is the tenant and operator of the station and that he is a necessary party to the case. The trial court held that Middlebrook, as tenant, is not only a proper party but is also a necessary party to the action. Upon application to this court,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Shields v. BarrowSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
  2. Niles-Bement-Pond Co. v. Iron Moulders Union Local No. 68Supreme Court of the United States · 1920
  3. Barmore v. DarraghCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
  4. People Ex Rel. Corwin v. . WalterNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
  5. Tod v. CrismanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. United States v. Vertac Chemical Corp.District Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1980
  2. Ditch v. HessSupreme Court of Iowa · 1973
  3. Mauer v. RohdeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1977
  4. United Security Insurance Co. v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1979
  5. Local Union 499 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Iowa Power & Light Co.District Court, S.D. Iowa · 1964

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API