Hicks v. Franklin County Auditor

How courts have described this case

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

• holding county engineer’s knowledge of landowners’ use of land subject to county’s easement was not evidence independent of landowners’ use so as to satisfy section 564.1
• concluding claimants’ act of filling in a ditch on the disputed land so they could farm it was not independent of their use of the land so as to support a prescriptive easement
• rejecting landowners’ argument “that the county should be stopped from reclaiming the right-of-way because they took no action 14 to repair or restore the surface waterway for almost fifty years”
• finding substantial compliance with statutory notice provisions for drainage districts where “no plaintiff has asserted that he or she was not informed of the project or was deprived of the opportunity to object”
• “The notice provisions are intended to safeguard the . . . property owners’ rights to be informed and object.”
• “Notice is required if the estimated costs of a repair or an improvement exceed a certain dollar amount or a percentage of the original cost of the improvements.” (citing Iowa Code § 468.126(1)(c), (4)(a))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).