Legal Opinion

Roth v. Headlee

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided December 16, 1947No. 47102PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Garfield, J.—

In effect, plaintiff-appellant asserts the question presented to us is whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant the allowance of his claim. This is a misconception. The action was tried at law without a jury. It is not reviewable here de novo but only upon the errors assigned. Rule 334, Rules of Civil Procedure; In re Estate of Hoenig, 230 Iowa 718, 720, 298 N. W. 887, 889; In re Estate of Anderson v. Application of Stason & Knoepfler, 216 Iowa 1017, 1019, 250 N. W. 183, and citations. The decision below on the facts has the force and effect of a jury verdict. Rule 334,…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Maasdam v. Estate of MaasdamSupreme Court of Iowa · 1946
  2. In Re Estate of NewsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1928
  3. In Re Estate of StratmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1942
  4. In Re Estate of TaltySupreme Court of Iowa · 1942
  5. In Re Estate of HaleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1942

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Markman v. HoeferSupreme Court of Iowa · 1960
  2. Carlson v. Bankers Trust Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1951
  3. Ruble v. CarrSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953
  4. Lautenbach v. MeredithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1949
  5. Cole v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1951

42 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