Legal Opinion

Olmsted, Inc. v. Maryland Casualty Co.

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided April 3, 1934No. 41829PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClaussen, C. J.

This action is based upon a conspiracy. The appeal can be disposed of by an examination of the facts for the purpose of ascertaining whether anything was done pursuant to the ■alleged conspiracy which is actionable. This court is committed to the rule that a conspiracy cannot be the subject of a civil action unless something is done pursuant to it which, without the conspiracy, would give a right of action. Beechley v. Mulville, 102 Iowa 602, 70 N. W. 107, 71 N. W. 428, 63 Am. St. Rep. 479; De Wulf v. Dix, 110 Iowa 553, 81 N. W. 779; Jayne v. Drorbaugh, 63 Iowa 711, 17 N. W. 433; Dunshee v.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Dunshee v. Standard Oil Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1911
  2. Jayne v. DrorbaughSupreme Court of Iowa · 1883
  3. Beechley v. MulvilleSupreme Court of Iowa · 1897
  4. De Wulf v. DixSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Beck v. PrupisSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. Harding v. Ohio Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1950
  3. Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Iowa Fruit & Produce Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1940
  4. Neff v. World Publishing Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1965
  5. Neustadt v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939

10 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