Cowan v. Flannery

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that “[t]he trial court should not discharge the jury until it determines the special verdict is consistent and supported by evidence,” but noting the claimed inconsistency was raised in motion for new trial or conditional trial
• stating jury should ordinarily be allowed to decide disputed fact questions
• stating jury should ordinarily be allowed to decide disputed fact questions
• “trial court should not discharge jury until it determines ... verdict is consistent and supported by evidence”
• trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant new trial where answers in special verdict were inconsistent with each other (awarded $21,220 for medical expenses but $0 for pain and suffering)
• negligence claim for damages resulting from injury to person “now brought under the provisions of chapter 668 of the Iowa Code; liability in tort — comparative fault”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).