Legal Opinion

Harwood v. Dysart Consolidated School District

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided January 8, 1946No. 46726PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBliss, C. J.

The facts have been stipulated and are not in dispute. The district, which we will refer to as the defendant, is a consolidated school district, duly organized and operating under the statutes of the state. The plaintiff is a resident of the district and his daughter is entitled to attend the school. She lives in the home of her father about four miles from the school. The school had operated a bus for the transportation-of pupils on the road passing plaintiff’s home, but under instructions of the State Department of Public Instruction and in compliance with the Second War Powers Act of 1942,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bruggeman v. Ind. Sch. Dist.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1939
  2. Bruggeman v. Independent School District No. 4, Union TownshipSupreme Court of Iowa · 1939
  3. Riecks v. Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of Iowa · 1934
  4. Dermit v. Sergeant Bluff Consolidated Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of Iowa · 1935
  5. Flowers v. Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of Iowa · 1944

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma State Board of Embalmers & Funeral Directors v. Guardian Funeral HomeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1967
  2. Silver Lake Consolidated School District v. ParkerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1947
  3. Byas v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
  4. State v. BerrySupreme Court of Iowa · 1976
  5. Altman v. Independent School DistrictSupreme Court of Iowa · 1948

4 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