Wilson v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that implicit in Reese was “the fact that the erroneous and misleading instructions tainted the jury verdict[] resulting in prejudice to the part[y] challenging the verdict[]”
• noting that implicit in Reese was \the fact that the erroneous and misleading instructions tainted the jury verdict[ ] resulting in prejudice to the part[y] challenging the verdict[ ]\
• recognizing UIM insurer bound by original judgment on jury verdict in tort action
• recognizing UIM insurer bound by original judgment on jury verdict in tort action
• refusing to follow reasoning expressed in prior case because it was dicta, stating reasoning was not pertinent to issue that resulted in reversal
• “We agree with Farm Bureau that with 37 no Iowa law on the issue, its duty to consent to be bound by the amended judgment entry was fairly debatable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).