Legal Opinion

Haugen v. Humboldt-Kossuth Joint Drainage District No. 2

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided December 9, 1941No. 45312PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Bliss, J. —

A number of questions have been submitted to us for answer, and the respective contentions of the parties have been ably presented and discussed. Part of the work, consisting of cleaning out the siltage and obstructions in, and deepening and widening, the main ditch and two laterals emptying into it, was done under a written contract at so much a cubic yard, with a provision for per-hour compensation in the event that sand was found in large quantities. There were subsequent verbal agreements respecting the removal of sand which came into the ditches after they had been dredged,…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. State v. BrandtSupreme Court of Iowa · 1875
  2. Ahrweiler v. Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1939
  3. Breiholz v. Board of Supervisors of Pocahontas Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1921
  4. State v. MyersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1860
  5. State Ex Rel. Winterfield v. Hardin County Rural Electric CooperativeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1939

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Hicks v. Franklin County AuditorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1994
  2. Thompson v. Joint Drainage District No. 3-11Supreme Court of Iowa · 1966
  3. Jones v. Iowa State Highway Commission Ex Rel. StateSupreme Court of Iowa · 1973
  4. Morrow v. Harrison CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1954
  5. Johnson v. Monona-Harrison Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of Iowa · 1955

6 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