Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Kristerin Development Co. v. Granson Investment

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided October 15, 1986No. 85-293Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWolle, Justice

I concur in Divisions I and II of the majority opinion because the evidence was clearly sufficient to generate jury questions on Kristerin’s contract claims against Granson and its individual partners. I dissent from Divisions III and IV because in my view the evidence was also sufficient to generate jury questions on Kristerin’s fraud claims against all defendants.

I. Fraud Claim Against Granson and Its Partners.

Kristerin alleged and offered substantial evidence to prove that Grandquist falsely made two representations to KJ’s representative Netteland shortly after KJ and two partners of…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Beeck v. Aquaslide 'N' Dive Corp.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1984
  2. Lockard v. CarsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1980
  3. Sedco International, S. A. v. CoryCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982
  4. McCann v. ClarkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1914
  5. Feldhahn v. R.K.B. Quality Corp.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API