Maier v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
Supreme Court of Iowa
1Opinion of the Court
HARRIS, Justice.
Defendant appeals a judgment for plaintiff for damages arising from a car-train accident. We affirm.
Considerable factual detail is hotly disputed. The parties expend considerable ink and effort outlining the conflicting testimony of various witnesses. Except for a special purpose (as, for example, in arguing the sufficiency of evidence) it is generally idle on appeal to indulge in such disputes. Generally, except where our review is de novo, arguments over conflicting testimony come too late on appeal. These factual arguments should have been addressed to the finder of facts.…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Daniels v. BloomquistSupreme Court of Iowa · 1965
- Twyford v. WeberSupreme Court of Iowa · 1974
- Porter v. Iowa Power and Light CompanySupreme Court of Iowa · 1974
- State v. GradySupreme Court of Iowa · 1971
- Ganrud v. SmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1973
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. McKeeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1981
- Sullivan v. Chicago & Northwestern Transportation Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1982
- Hines v. Illinois Central Gulf RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1983
- State v. HahnSupreme Court of Iowa · 1977
- Symmonds v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1976
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.