Legal Opinion

Freeman v. Ernst & Young

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided December 20, 1995No. 94-1635PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The primary question we must decide in this ease is whether the court may properly use a nunc pro tunc order to correct the rate of interest awarded on a judgment, so that it conforms with Iowa Code section 668.13 (1993), where the clerk entered a rate of interest in the judgment record under the general interest statute, Iowa Code section 535.3, pursuant to the court’s ruling awarding interest “as provided by law.” We conclude the court properly corrected the interest rate pursuant to an order nunc pro tunc.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

This appeal arises out of a negligence action…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Freeman v. Ernst & YoungSupreme Court of Iowa · 1994
  2. General Mills, Inc. v. PrallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953
  3. Headley v. HeadleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1969
  4. McVay v. Kenneth E. Montz Implement Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1980
  5. State v. AumannSupreme Court of Iowa · 1975

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 2008
  2. State Of Iowa Vs. Anthony Lamont JohnsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API