Legal Opinion

Carter v. Jernigan

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided March 19, 1975No. 56266PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

UHLENHOPP, Justice.

The principal question in this appeal is whether the trial court properly sustained defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We recently stated the principle governing such motions in Daboll v. Hoden, 222 N.W.2d 727, 731 (Iowa):

Where there is no genuine issue of fact to be decided, the party with a just cause should be able to obtain a judgment promptly and without the expense and delay of a trial. . . . “In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court’s function is to determine whether such a genuine issue exists, not to decide the merits of one which does.” Bauer v.…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Daboll v. HodenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1974
  2. Brick v. City of WichitaSupreme Court of Kansas · 1965
  3. Plouffe v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
  4. Victor Surpitski v. Hughes-Keenan Corporation, Etc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966
  5. Robbins v. City of JerseySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1957

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Meyer v. NottgerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1976
  2. Moser v. Thorp Sales Corp.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1981
  3. Winegard v. LarsenSupreme Court of Iowa · 1977
  4. Swets Motor Sales, Inc. v. PruisnerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1975
  5. Bitner v. Ottumwa Community School DistrictSupreme Court of Iowa · 1996

22 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