objectives error in Iowa

2019P. 2.19(8)(a) (allowing court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal “after the evidence on either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction”); cf. Lee v. State, 815 N.W.2d 731, 739 (Iowa 2012) (“We will not exalt form over substance when the objectives of our error preservation rules have been met.”). 6 clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Iowa 2003).

2015See Lee v. State, 815 N.W.2d 731, 739 (Iowa 2012) (“We will not exalt form over substance when the objectives of our error preservation rules have been met.”); Griffin Pipe Prods.

2022See State v. Opperman, 826 N.W.2d 131, 133 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012) (“For an issue to be preserved the objectives of the error- preservation rules must be accomplished: challenges must be raised at the earliest possible point, opposing counsel must have notice and the opportunity to be heard, and the district court must have the opportunity to consider and pronounce a ruling on the issue.”); see also Zacarias, 958 N.W.2d at 586–87 (citing Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002)).

2021See State v. Opperman, 826 N.W.2d 131, 133 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012) (“For an issue to be preserved the objectives of the error-preservation rules must be accomplished: 7 challenges must be raised at the earliest possible point, opposing counsel must have notice and the opportunity to be heard, and the district court must have the opportunity to consider and pronounce a ruling on the issue.” (emphasis added)); cf. State v. Zipprich, No. 00-1847, 2002 WL 571634 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2002) (“A party cannot claim error with respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence where he or she in

2015Co. v. Bd. of Review, 789 N.W.2d 769, 772 (Iowa 2010) (“Our issue preservation rules are not designed to be hypertechnical.”).

2015Co. v. Bd. of Review, 789 N.W.2d 769, 772 (Iowa 2010) (“Our issue preservation rules are not designed to be hypertechnical.”).

2022See State v. Opperman, 826 N.W.2d 131, 133 (Iowa Ct. App. 2012) (“For an issue to be preserved the objectives of the error- preservation rules must be accomplished: challenges must be raised at the earliest possible point, opposing counsel must have notice and the opportunity to be heard, and the district court must have the opportunity to consider and pronounce a ruling on the issue.”); see also Zacarias, 958 N.W.2d at 586–87 (citing Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002)).

2019P. 2.19(8)(a) (allowing court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal “after the evidence on either side is closed if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction”); cf. Lee v. State, 815 N.W.2d 731, 739 (Iowa 2012) (“We will not exalt form over substance when the objectives of our error preservation rules have been met.”). 6 clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 202 (Iowa 2003).

2012State v. Mann, 602 N.W.2d 785, 790 (Iowa 1999) (holding that even when the exact technicalities of error preservation do not occur, the objectives of error preservation can be met and the appellate court can find error was adequately preserved).

2012State v. Mann, 602 N.W.2d 785, 790 (Iowa 1999) (holding that even when the exact technicalities of error preservation do not occur, the objectives of error preservation can be met and the appellate court can find error was adequately preserved).

2004In this second stage, the court focuses on the policy objectives that the work product doctrine has been developed to promote — then determines whether (and to what extent) denying Rule 26(b)(3)’s protections to the document would harm those objectives (or, the extent to which conferring that protection would advance the policy purposes that inform the work product doctrine.) The court would conclude that the document comes within the ambit of the Rule (was “prepared in anticipation of litigation”) on a showing that a contrary conclusion would likely frustrate or interfere (more than minimally

2004See id. § 543B.56(2)(a) (requiring licensee to place “client’s interests ahead of the interests of any other party”); Menzel v. Morse, 362 N.W.2d 465, 474 (Iowa 1985) (“The relationship between a broker or agent and his or her principal is confidential and fiduciary, including a strict duty of undivided loyalty and disclosure.”).

1999Cf. Milner, 571 N.W.2d at 12 (holding error was preserved when issue was raised at the earliest available opportunity and “the objectives of our error-preservation rules were accomplished”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 334 (Iowa 1991) (holding defendant failed to preserve error when his objection to the composition of the jury panel was not made until a post-verdict motion in arrest of judgment, noting that the failure to object earlier deprived the court of the opportunity to take corrective action); State v. Ritchison, 223 N.W.2d 207, 214 (Iowa 1974) (rejecting constitutional challenge

1999Cf. Milner, 571 N.W.2d at 12 (holding error was preserved when issue was raised at the earliest available opportunity and “the objectives of our error-preservation rules were accomplished”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 334 (Iowa 1991) (holding defendant failed to preserve error when his objection to the composition of the jury panel was not made until a post-verdict motion in arrest of judgment, noting that the failure to object earlier deprived the court of the opportunity to take corrective action); State v. Ritchison, 223 N.W.2d 207, 214 (Iowa 1974) (rejecting constitutional challenge

1999Cf. Milner, 571 N.W.2d at 12 (holding error was preserved when issue was raised at the earliest available opportunity and “the objectives of our error-preservation rules were accomplished”); State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330, 334 (Iowa 1991) (holding defendant failed to preserve error when his objection to the composition of the jury panel was not made until a post-verdict motion in arrest of judgment, noting that the failure to object earlier deprived the court of the opportunity to take corrective action); State v. Ritchison, 223 N.W.2d 207, 214 (Iowa 1974) (rejecting constitutional challenge