Haugland v. Schmidt, No. 83-801
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
| Writing for the Court | Considered by REYNOLDSON; UHLENHOPP |
| Citation | 349 N.W.2d 121 |
| Parties | Marvin HAUGLAND and Mark Haugland, Plaintiffs, v. Roger SCHMIDT and Schmidt Livestock, Inc., Defendants. Roger SCHMIDT and Schmidt Livestock, Inc., Appellants, v. NORTH IOWA STATE BANK, Defendant, and H.T. Bosworth, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 13 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-801 |
Page 121
v.
Roger SCHMIDT and Schmidt Livestock, Inc., Defendants.
Roger SCHMIDT and Schmidt Livestock, Inc., Appellants,
v.
NORTH IOWA STATE BANK, Defendant,
and H.T. Bosworth, Appellee.
Page 122
Joel J. Yunck of Laird, Burington, Heiny, McManigal, Walters & Winga, Mason City, for appellants.
James L. Kramer of Johnson, Erb, Latham, Gibb & Carlson, Fort Dodge, for appellee.
Considered by REYNOLDSON, C.J., and UHLENHOPP, HARRIS, McGIVERIN, and CARTER, JJ.
UHLENHOPP, Justice.
This appeal involves the sufficiency of a cross petition under notice pleading. Iowa R.Civ.P. 69(a).
Plaintiffs Haugland filed a petition against defendants Schmidt alleging essentially that they bought sows from Schmidts; that the sows were moved from the Forest City Sale Barn to their farm; that the sows were never tested for disease and no health certificate or veterinarian inspection certificate was obtained prior to movement of the sows; that the sows had pseudo rabies and infected Hauglands' entire herd of swine; that Hauglands were compelled to sell their breeding stock of swine and sustained a loss of $52,215; that Schmidts breached implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose as well as the duty to test under chapter 163.30 of the Iowa Code (1981); and that the breaches constituted the proximate cause of Hauglands' damages. Hauglands asked judgment against Schmidts for $52,215 plus interest and costs.
Schmidts filed a cross petition against defendant H.T. Bosworth, incorporating Hauglands' petition and alleging that if Hauglands prove their allegations and obtain judgment against Schmidts, then Schmidts, upon payment of the judgment, are entitled to indemnity in full or to contribution for half from Bosworth "for his negligence in failing to report the outbreak
Page 123
of an infectious disease to the Iowa Department of Agriculture, and for failing to quarantine the diseased animals." Schmidts asked judgment against Bosworth for indemnity or contribution for half, plus costs.Bosworth filed a motion to dismiss Schmidts' cross petition on the ground its allegations are insufficient in a number of respects. The district court sustained the motion, stating inter alia:
Even granted the liberal requirements of stating a "claim" in current "notice" pleadings under Iowa Rules, still the allegations of the third party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State, No. 08–2006.
...the opposing party of the nature of the incident out of which the claim arose and the general nature of the action. Haugland v. Schmidt, 349 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Iowa 1984). We have stated that “[i]n Iowa, very little is required by way of pleading to provide notice.” Wilker v. Wilker, 630 N.W.......
-
Rieff v. Evans, No. 99-0313.
...`is sufficient if it apprises of the incident out of which the claim arose and the mere general nature of action.'" Haugland v. Schmidt, 349 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Iowa 1984) (quoting Northwestern Nat'l Bank v. Metro Ctr., Inc., 303 N.W.2d 395, 401 (Iowa 1981)). Under Rule 69's requirement that t......
-
Woods v. Schmitt, No. 87-549
...has failed to state a claim upon which any relief may be granted under any state of facts which could be proved. Haugland v. Schmidt, 349 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Iowa Our first search is to determine whether plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which any relief may be granted. In their appellate br......
-
Lake v. Schaffnit, No. 86-70
...obliged "to allege a legal theory or to spell out the elements of a cause of action as in a common law pleading." Haugland v. Schmidt, 349 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Iowa 1984). Rather, a "short and plain statement of the claim" suffices. Iowa R.Civ.P. 69(a); see Schmidt v. Wilkinson, 340 N.W.2d 282,......
-
King v. State, No. 08–2006.
...the opposing party of the nature of the incident out of which the claim arose and the general nature of the action. Haugland v. Schmidt, 349 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Iowa 1984). We have stated that “[i]n Iowa, very little is required by way of pleading to provide notice.” Wilker v. Wilker, 630 N.W.......
-
Rieff v. Evans, No. 99-0313.
...`is sufficient if it apprises of the incident out of which the claim arose and the mere general nature of action.'" Haugland v. Schmidt, 349 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Iowa 1984) (quoting Northwestern Nat'l Bank v. Metro Ctr., Inc., 303 N.W.2d 395, 401 (Iowa 1981)). Under Rule 69's requirement that t......
-
Woods v. Schmitt, No. 87-549
...has failed to state a claim upon which any relief may be granted under any state of facts which could be proved. Haugland v. Schmidt, 349 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Iowa Our first search is to determine whether plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which any relief may be granted. In their appellate br......
-
Lake v. Schaffnit, No. 86-70
...obliged "to allege a legal theory or to spell out the elements of a cause of action as in a common law pleading." Haugland v. Schmidt, 349 N.W.2d 121, 123 (Iowa 1984). Rather, a "short and plain statement of the claim" suffices. Iowa R.Civ.P. 69(a); see Schmidt v. Wilkinson, 340 N.W.2d 282,......