Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
18 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Meier v. SENECAUT IIIgreen2 sentences2025See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 539 (Iowa 2002) (explaining a party must “request a ruling from the district court to preserve error for appeal on an issue presented but not decided”). 2024See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (noting that a party must file a motion requesting a ruling with the district court when an issue was not ruled on by the district court to preserve error for 9 appeal). | 6 | 9 |
In Re the Marriage of Ricklefsgreen1 sentence2026See Ricklefs, 726 N.W.2d at 362–63. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchellgreen1 sentence2020“Issues not raised before the district court, including constitutional issues, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” State v. Mitchell, 757 N.W.2d 431, 435 (Iowa 2008); accord Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 539 (Iowa 2002) (finding that a party must request a ruling from the district court to preserve error for appeal on an issue presented but not decided). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Halliburtongreen1 sentence2018See State v. Lovig , 675 N.W.2d 557 , 562 (Iowa 2004) ("The adverse ruling on Lovig's motion to suppress preserved error for our review."); State v. Breuer , 577 N.W.2d 41 , 44 (Iowa 1998) (noting the need for an adverse ruling by the district court to preserve error on a motion to suppress); State v. Halliburton , 539 N.W.2d 339 , 343 (Iowa 1995) ("As a rule, a defendant must preserve error by making an objection at the earliest opportunity after the grounds for the objection become apparent."); see also State v. Ambrose , 861 N.W.2d 550 , 555 (Iowa 2015) (discussing purposes of error preserv | 1 | 1 |
State v. Loviggreen1 sentence2018See State v. Lovig , 675 N.W.2d 557 , 562 (Iowa 2004) ("The adverse ruling on Lovig's motion to suppress preserved error for our review."); State v. Breuer , 577 N.W.2d 41 , 44 (Iowa 1998) (noting the need for an adverse ruling by the district court to preserve error on a motion to suppress); State v. Halliburton , 539 N.W.2d 339 , 343 (Iowa 1995) ("As a rule, a defendant must preserve error by making an objection at the earliest opportunity after the grounds for the objection become apparent."); see also State v. Ambrose , 861 N.W.2d 550 , 555 (Iowa 2015) (discussing purposes of error preserv | 1 | 1 |
State of Iowa v. Kevin Deshay Ambrosegreen1 sentence2018See State v. Lovig , 675 N.W.2d 557 , 562 (Iowa 2004) ("The adverse ruling on Lovig's motion to suppress preserved error for our review."); State v. Breuer , 577 N.W.2d 41 , 44 (Iowa 1998) (noting the need for an adverse ruling by the district court to preserve error on a motion to suppress); State v. Halliburton , 539 N.W.2d 339 , 343 (Iowa 1995) ("As a rule, a defendant must preserve error by making an objection at the earliest opportunity after the grounds for the objection become apparent."); see also State v. Ambrose , 861 N.W.2d 550 , 555 (Iowa 2015) (discussing purposes of error preserv | 1 | 1 |
Regional Utility Service Systems v. City of Mount Union, Iowagreen1 sentence2017Sys. v. City of Mount Union, 874 N.W.2d 120, 126 (Iowa 2016) (“Ordinarily a successful party need not cross-appeal on a ground presented to but ignored or rejected by the district court to preserve error. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Marriage of Oklandgreen1 sentence2016See In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260, 270 (Iowa 2005) (noting the need to seek a ruling by the district court to preserve error). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Abbasgreen1 sentence2001See State v. Anspach, 627 N.W.2d 227, 231 (Iowa 2001) (citing State v. Abbas, 561 N.W.2d 72, 74 (Iowa 1997)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Anspachgreen1 sentence2001See State v. Anspach, 627 N.W.2d 227, 231 (Iowa 2001) (citing State v. Abbas, 561 N.W.2d 72, 74 (Iowa 1997)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yee v. City of Escondido
green
2 sentences2023So, even if there is no available rule-based method for bringing the court’s failure to rule on an issue to the court’s attention, a “party must still request a ruling from the district court to preserve error for appeal on an issue presented but not decided.” Id. 2019Id. "[A] party may use any means to request the court to make a ruling on an issue." Id. at 539 , 112 S. Ct. 1522 , 1534. [E]ven if a rule 179(b) [now rule 1.904(2) ] motion [to reconsider, enlarge, or amend] is not available to a party to challenge a district court ruling ... that party must still request a ruling from the district court to preserve error for appeal on an issue presented but not decided. | 2 | 2019–2023 |
State v. Breuer
green
1 sentence2018See State v. Lovig , 675 N.W.2d 557 , 562 (Iowa 2004) ("The adverse ruling on Lovig's motion to suppress preserved error for our review."); State v. Breuer , 577 N.W.2d 41 , 44 (Iowa 1998) (noting the need for an adverse ruling by the district court to preserve error on a motion to suppress); State v. Halliburton , 539 N.W.2d 339 , 343 (Iowa 1995) ("As a rule, a defendant must preserve error by making an objection at the earliest opportunity after the grounds for the objection become apparent."); see also State v. Ambrose , 861 N.W.2d 550 , 555 (Iowa 2015) (discussing purposes of error preserv | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Lynn G. Lamasters Vs. State of Iowa
green
1 sentence2016Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856 , 863– 64 (Iowa 2012). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Explore Info. Servs. v. COURT INFO. SYS
green
2 sentences2005“Even if a rule [1.904(2)] motion is not available to a party ... that party must still request a ruling from the district court to preserve error for appeal on an issue presented but not decided.” Id. 2005We recognize there “is no procedural rule solely dedicated to the preservation of error doctrine” so “a party may use any means to request the court to make a ruling on an issue.” Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |