Legal Opinion

City of Akron v. Akron Westfield Community School District

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided April 2, 2003No. 02-0058PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

Because the taxpayers end up paying for public obligations, set formalities are required for a binding governmental contract. Here those formal actions were not met by a city in its contract with a school district, so the trial court held the contract was void. Because the school district negotiated, entered, and acted on the contract in good faith, school district officials view the holding as unfair. It is however correct and we affirm.

This unfortunate suit stems from an exceptionally good idea. The superintendent for defendant Akron-Westfield Community School District became interested in…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Miller v. Marshall CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 2002
  2. Marco Development Corp. v. City of Cedar FallsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1991
  3. Johnson v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1981
  4. Humphries v. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of CrescoSupreme Court of Iowa · 1997
  5. City of Marshalltown v. ReyersonCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 1995

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. ABC Disposal Systems, Inc. v. Department of Natural ResourcesSupreme Court of Iowa · 2004
  2. Markey v. CarneySupreme Court of Iowa · 2005
  3. Pecenka v. Fareway Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 2003
  4. UE Local 893/IUP v. State of IowaSupreme Court of Iowa · 2019
  5. Maxim Technologies, Inc. v. City of DubuqueSupreme Court of Iowa · 2005

7 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