Legal Opinion

Riggs v. Hatfield

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided October 27, 1919PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from Warren District Court. — W. H. Fahey, Judge. For reasons that will appear in the body of the opinion, we pretermit the making of a preliminary statement.—

1Opinion of the CourtSalinger, J.

*• EHEorf;1, abstracts unmnf'oi argument.ana I. It becomes our duty to pass upon a motion by appellee which was ordered submitted with the cause. In that motion, it is prayed that the abstract and argument of appellant be stricken. One Sroun(I of the motion is that the abstract and argument are combined in one binding: It is complained that this is contrary to Rules 52 and 58. We find no rule prohibiting such combination in binding. Possibly counsel have made a mistake in reference to the rules. In Section 55 alone is there any requirement for separate binding. It is not that the abstract and…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Wine v. JonesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
  2. Peterson v. McManusSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
  3. State v. StansberrySupreme Court of Iowa · 1918
  4. Stilwell v. StilwellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
  5. Powers v. Iowa Glue Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1918

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Reynolds v. HenrySupreme Court of Iowa · 1921
  2. Wilson v. ElseSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927
  3. Fisher v. McCartySupreme Court of Iowa · 1923
  4. Pascoe v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RailroadSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919

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

Powered by the Exa API