Court Opinion

ID: 9709940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:57:58.955495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:52.882767
License: Public Domain

HARRIS, Justice
(concurring).
The majority is entirely correct in holding that the claim preclusion doctrine binds us now to our majority holding in Stanfield v. Polk County, 492 N.W.2d 648 (Iowa 1992). Even though we are obliged to submit to that holding, I write separately to state that I persist in my view that Stan-field was incorrectly decided.
I continue to regret my inability to persuade the majority in Stanfield it could reach the merits of the dispute. On the merits, for reasons explained in my Stan-field dissent, I am sure the question is not at all close. The lease-purchase agreement should have been recognized as a private obligation and any payments or further extensions of credit by Polk County should have been enjoined.
LARSON, J., joins this concurrence.