party seeking instruction in Iowa

2018“When we weigh the sufficiency of the evidence to support a requested instruction, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party seeking the instruction.” Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Thermogas Co., 620 N.W.2d 819, 824 (Iowa 2000).

2017“When we weigh the sufficiency of the evidence to support a requested instruction, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the party seeking the instruction.” Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Thermogas Co., 620 N.W.2d 819, 824 (Iowa 2000).

2020“When weighing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a requested instruction, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party seeking the instruction.” Herbst, 616 N.W.2d at 585 (quoting Duncan v. City of Cedar Rapids, 560 N.W.2d 320, 325 (Iowa 1997)).

2000“When weighing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a requested instruction, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party seeking the instruction.” Duncan, 560 N.W.2d at 325 ; Sonnek, 522 N.W.2d at 47 .

2017“Questions of jurisdiction, authority, and venue are legal issues to be reviewed for corrections of errors at law.” Kloster v. Hormel Foods Corp., 612 N.W.2d 772, 773 (Iowa 2000).

2017“Questions of jurisdiction, authority, and venue are legal issues to be reviewed for corrections of errors at law.” Kloster v. Hormel Foods Corp., 612 N.W.2d 772, 773 (Iowa 2000).

2007Franklin v. Andrews, 595 N.W.2d 488, 489 (Iowa 1999).

2007Franklin v. Andrews, 595 N.W.2d 488, 489 (Iowa 1999).

2017Rowling v. Sims, 732 N.W.2d 882, 885 (Iowa 2007). ‘When reviewing a claim that an instruction was not supported by substantial evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party seeking the instruction.” Id.

2017Rowling v. Sims, 732 N.W.2d 882, 885 (Iowa 2007). ‘When reviewing a claim that an instruction was not supported by substantial evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party seeking the instruction.” Id.

2025Our case law interprets this immunity provision to impose a three-part test requiring the party seeking immunity to prove “(1) the snow or ice in question was on a highway, road, or street; (2) the city had a policy or level of service for snow and ice removal; and (3) the city complied with that policy or level of service.” 4 Humphries v. Tr. of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Cresco, 566 N.W.2d 869, 872 (Iowa 1997).

2021See Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 , 749–50, 104 S. Ct. 2091, 2097 (1984) (stating that the government bears a “heavy burden” to show exigent circumstances).

2021See Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 , 749–50, 104 S. Ct. 2091, 2097 (1984) (stating that the government bears a “heavy burden” to show exigent circumstances).

2019Waiver of Homestead Rights After finding the Joneses’ homestead could not be sold to recover attorney fees under section 561.21(3), the court found the Joneses had waived their homestead rights in the property under theories of judicial estoppel, the law of the case doctrine, and res judicata. “[W]aiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right.” Huisman v. Miedema, 644 N.W.2d 321, 324 (Iowa 2002) (quoting State v. Hallum, 606 N.W.2d 351, 354 (Iowa 2000)). “[T]he burden of showing waiver rests on the party seeking to claim some advantage on account thereof.” Butler v. Cleland, 202 N.W.

2019Waiver of Homestead Rights After finding the Joneses’ homestead could not be sold to recover attorney fees under section 561.21(3), the court found the Joneses had waived their homestead rights in the property under theories of judicial estoppel, the law of the case doctrine, and res judicata. “[W]aiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right.” Huisman v. Miedema, 644 N.W.2d 321, 324 (Iowa 2002) (quoting State v. Hallum, 606 N.W.2d 351, 354 (Iowa 2000)). “[T]he burden of showing waiver rests on the party seeking to claim some advantage on account thereof.” Butler v. Cleland, 202 N.W.

2019A. Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides, “[A] party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 74 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911)). “[A] central tenet of the doctrine is ‘the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action.’” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)).

2019Waiver of Homestead Rights After finding the Joneses’ homestead could not be sold to recover attorney fees under section 561.21(3), the court found the Joneses had waived their homestead rights in the property under theories of judicial estoppel, the law of the case doctrine, and res judicata. “[W]aiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right.” Huisman v. Miedema, 644 N.W.2d 321, 324 (Iowa 2002) (quoting State v. Hallum, 606 N.W.2d 351, 354 (Iowa 2000)). “[T]he burden of showing waiver rests on the party seeking to claim some advantage on account thereof.” Butler v. Cleland, 202 N.W.

2019A. Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides, “[A] party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 74 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911)). “[A] central tenet of the doctrine is ‘the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action.’” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)).

2019A. Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides, “[A] party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 74 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911)). “[A] central tenet of the doctrine is ‘the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action.’” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)).

2019A. Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides, “[A] party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 74 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911)). “[A] central tenet of the doctrine is ‘the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action.’” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)).