Legal Opinion

Porter v. Good Eavespouting

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided August 25, 1993No. 92-337PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ANDREASEN, Justice.

The district court denied the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend because the plaintiff had failed to show that notice of the suit had been given to the prospective defendants “within the period provided by law for commencing the action.” See Iowa R.Civ.P. 89. The court also granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the named defendant was not a legal entity. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court. Upon our review, we vacate the court of appeals decision, affirm the district court’s ruling upon the motion for leave to amend, and reverse…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Schiavone v. FortuneSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Westway Trading Corp. v. River Terminal Corp.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1982
  3. Fees v. Mutual Fire & Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1992
  4. M-Z Entersprises, Inc. v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1982
  5. Thune Ex Rel. Thune v. Hokah Cheese Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1967

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Rieff v. EvansSupreme Court of Iowa · 2001
  2. Tomka v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1995
  3. Estate of Kuhns v. MarcoSupreme Court of Iowa · 2000
  4. Alvarez v. Meadow Lane Mall Ltd. PartnershipSupreme Court of Iowa · 1997
  5. Hawkeye Bank v. StateSupreme Court of Iowa · 1994

17 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