district court fails rule in Iowa

2026See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.”).

2026“When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.” Id. (citation omitted).

2026See id. (“When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.” (citation omitted)).

2024See, e.g., Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012) (“When a district court fails to rule on an issue . . . raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.” (citation omitted)); State v. Willard, 756 N.W.2d 207, 215 (Iowa 2008) (finding error not preserved where defendant “failed to obtain a ruling” on issue).

2019See Boyle v. Alum-Line, Inc., 710 N.W.2d 741 , 751 n.4 (Iowa 2006) (“When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.”). 3 IV.” After he was resuscitated, medical staff performed surgery to repair organ damaged caused by the kidney stones and treated Schreiber’s septic poisoning with antibiotics.

2017See State v. Howse, 875 N.W.2d 684, 688 (Iowa 2016); see also Boyle v. Alum–Line, Inc., 710 N.W.2d 741 , 751 n.4 (Iowa 2006) (“When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.”). 9 judgment probation-revocation hearing2; she stipulated to the facts contained in the State’s application.

2012See, e.g., State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 524 (Iowa 2011) (stating that “when a court fails to rule on a matter, a party must request a ruling by some means”); Fennelly v. A-1 Mach. & Tool Co., 728 N.W.2d 181, 187 (Iowa 2007) (finding a claim that was not addressed in the district court’s summary judgment order and not subsequently brought to the court’s attention had not been preserved for appeal); Stammeyer v. Div. of Narcotics Enforcement, 721 N.W.2d 541, 548 (Iowa 2006) (finding an argument not preserved for appeal when there was “nothing indicating the court ruled upon or even conside

2011Neither Maureen nor the estate filed a motion under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2) to enlarge the district court’s findings or otherwise requested the district court to rule on this issue. “ ‘When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.’ ” Stammeyer v. Div. of Narcotics Enforcement, 721 N.W.2d 541, 548 (Iowa 2006) (quoting Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002)).

2022When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.” (quoting Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002))); see also Top of Iowa Co-op v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454, 470 (Iowa 2000) (noting interests protected by error-preservation rules allow appellate courts to consider error preservation sua sponte).

2021When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.” (quoting Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002))); see also Top of Iowa Co-op v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454, 470 (Iowa 2000) (noting interests protected by error preservation rules allow appellate courts to consider error preservation sua sponte).

2014Kramer v. Bd. of Adjustment for Sioux County, 795 N.W.2d 86, 93 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010).

2014Kramer v. Bd. of Adjustment for Sioux County, 795 N.W.2d 86, 93 (Iowa Ct. App. 2010).

2025“We review the district court’s interpretation of Iowa Code section 804.20 for errors at law.” State v. Moorehead, 699 N.W.2d 667, 671 (Iowa 2005).

2024See, e.g., Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012) (“When a district court fails to rule on an issue . . . raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.” (citation omitted)); State v. Willard, 756 N.W.2d 207, 215 (Iowa 2008) (finding error not preserved where defendant “failed to obtain a ruling” on issue).

2022See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error 8 for appeal.”); State v. Webb, 516 N.W.2d 824, 828 (Iowa 1994) (“We may not consider an issue that is raised for the first time on appeal, ‘even if it is of constitutional dimension.’ ” (quoting Patchette v. State, 374 N.W.2d 397, 401 (Iowa 1985))).

2022See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error 8 for appeal.”); State v. Webb, 516 N.W.2d 824, 828 (Iowa 1994) (“We may not consider an issue that is raised for the first time on appeal, ‘even if it is of constitutional dimension.’ ” (quoting Patchette v. State, 374 N.W.2d 397, 401 (Iowa 1985))).

2022See State v. Walker, 304 N.W.2d 193, 195 (Iowa 1981) (“Our rule is that, when a motion is not ruled on in the trial court, and 39 there is no request or demand for ruling, error has not been preserved.”); see also Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 537 (“When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.”).

2020When a district court fails to rule on an issue 2 To establish a Brady violation occurred, McCoy would have to “prove by a preponderance of the evidence ‘(1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to [McCoy]; and (3) the evidence was material to the issue of guilt.’” DeSimone v. State, 803 N.W.2d 97, 103 (Iowa 2011) (quoting Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509, 516 (Iowa 2003)). 3 The district court’s ruling on this issue appears at pages six through nine of its order. 4 properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruli

2020When a district court fails to rule on an issue 2 To establish a Brady violation occurred, McCoy would have to “prove by a preponderance of the evidence ‘(1) the prosecution suppressed evidence; (2) the evidence was favorable to [McCoy]; and (3) the evidence was material to the issue of guilt.’” DeSimone v. State, 803 N.W.2d 97, 103 (Iowa 2011) (quoting Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509, 516 (Iowa 2003)). 3 The district court’s ruling on this issue appears at pages six through nine of its order. 4 properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruli

2019Although Mullen makes no specific claim PCR counsel was ineffective in failing to preserve error, see State v. Harris, 919 N.W.2d 753, 754 (Iowa 2018) (“When counsel fails to preserve error at trial, a defendant can have the matter reviewed as an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim.”), he does passively reference “structural error” and circumstances in which our supreme court has recognized it occurs.

2017When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.”); see also State v. Derby, 800 N.W.2d 52, 60 (Iowa 2011) (“Issues not raised before the district court, including constitutional issues, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” (citation omitted)). 3 A defendant may challenge the legality of a sentence at any time.

2017State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862, 869 (Iowa 2009); see also Iowa R.

2017See State v. Howse, 875 N.W.2d 684, 688 (Iowa 2016); see also Boyle v. Alum–Line, Inc., 710 N.W.2d 741 , 751 n.4 (Iowa 2006) (“When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.”). 9 judgment probation-revocation hearing2; she stipulated to the facts contained in the State’s application.

2017See Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 480 .

2016“When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.” Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 537 ; see In re A.M.H., 516 N.W.2d 867, 872 (Iowa 1994) (holding a party must draw overlooked issues to 2 In his petition, the father maintains error was preserved for our review “by the filing of the NOTICE OF APPEAL . . . within the time required.” “While this is a common statement in briefs, it is erroneous, for the notice of appeal has nothing to do with error preservation.” Thomas A.

2016However, the claim pursued by counsel cannot be addressed in a PCR proceeding, see Grissom, 572 N.W.2d at 185 (noting sentencing claims relating to an inmate’s health are not the appropriate subject of a PCR action), leading the PCR court to dismiss the application on this basis.

2015When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.”).3 Additionally, even if the defendants’ claim regarding the non-reliance provision was preserved, “[u]nder Iowa law, contractual disclaimers are ineffective to bar a plaintiff from asserting a claim for fraudulent inducement.” Northwest Bank & Trust Co. v. First Illinois Nat’l Bank, 354 F.3d 721, 726 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Hall v. Crow, 34 N.W.2d 195, 199 (Iowa 1948) (“[W]here there is evidence of fraudulent

2015When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.”).3 Additionally, even if the defendants’ claim regarding the non-reliance provision was preserved, “[u]nder Iowa law, contractual disclaimers are ineffective to bar a plaintiff from asserting a claim for fraudulent inducement.” Northwest Bank & Trust Co. v. First Illinois Nat’l Bank, 354 F.3d 721, 726 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing Hall v. Crow, 34 N.W.2d 195, 199 (Iowa 1948) (“[W]here there is evidence of fraudulent

2012See, e.g., State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 524 (Iowa 2011) (stating that “when a court fails to rule on a matter, a party must request a ruling by some means”); Fennelly v. A-1 Mach. & Tool Co., 728 N.W.2d 181, 187 (Iowa 2007) (finding a claim that was not addressed in the district court’s summary judgment order and not subsequently brought to the court’s attention had not been preserved for appeal); Stammeyer v. Div. of Narcotics Enforcement, 721 N.W.2d 541, 548 (Iowa 2006) (finding an argument not preserved for appeal when there was “nothing indicating the court ruled upon or even conside

2012See, e.g., State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 524 (Iowa 2011) (stating that “when a court fails to rule on a matter, a party must request a ruling by some means”); Fennelly v. A-1 Mach. & Tool Co., 728 N.W.2d 181, 187 (Iowa 2007) (finding a claim that was not addressed in the district court’s summary judgment order and not subsequently brought to the court’s attention had not been preserved for appeal); Stammeyer v. Div. of Narcotics Enforcement, 721 N.W.2d 541, 548 (Iowa 2006) (finding an argument not preserved for appeal when there was “nothing indicating the court ruled upon or even conside

2012See In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260 , 265–66 & n.2 (Iowa 2005). 11 the court ruled upon or even considered [it]”); Boyle v. Alum-Line, Inc., 710 N.W.2d 741 , 751 n.4 (Iowa 2006) (stating that “[w]hen a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal”).

2005Group, 666 N.W.2d 163, 167 (Iowa 2003) (“ Tt is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.’ When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.’ ” (quoting Meier, 6 41 N.W.2d at 537)).