thirty-day requirement in Iowa

2024Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.101(1)(b) provides that “[a] notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the filing of the final order or judgment.” This strict thirty-day requirement is somewhat tempered by rule 6.101(4), which tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal “when the notice is served, provided the notice is filed with the district court clerk within a reasonable time.” This tolling allows “some flexibility.” Cook v. City of Council Bluffs, 264 N.W.2d 784, 787 (Iowa 1978) (en banc).

2024Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.101(1)(b) provides that “[a] notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the filing of the final order or judgment.” This strict thirty-day requirement is somewhat tempered by rule 6.101(4), which tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal “when the notice is served, provided the notice is filed with the district court clerk within a reasonable time.” This tolling allows “some flexibility.” Cook v. City of Council Bluffs, 264 N.W.2d 784, 787 (Iowa 1978) (en banc).

2022This failure by the State is not an automatic bar to the district court’s order, however, as ‘the thirty-day requirement in section 910.3 is merely directory and not mandatory.’” (quoting State v. Blakley, 534 N.W.2d 645, 648 (Iowa 1995) (footnote omitted)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Jenkins, 788 N.W.2d 640, 647 (Iowa 2010).

2001This failure by the State is not an automatic bar to the district court’s order, however, as “the thirty-day requirement in section 910.3 is merely directory and not mandatory.” Id.

2022This failure by the State is not an automatic bar to the district court’s order, however, as ‘the thirty-day requirement in section 910.3 is merely directory and not mandatory.’” (quoting State v. Blakley, 534 N.W.2d 645, 648 (Iowa 1995) (footnote omitted)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Jenkins, 788 N.W.2d 640, 647 (Iowa 2010).

2022See Bradley, 637 N.W.2d at 213 (“[T]he State’s failure to comply with the thirty-day requirement ‘will not affect the validity of subsequent proceedings unless prejudice is shown.’” (citation omitted)).

2001Even if such is the case,, the State’s failure to comply with the thirty-day requirement “will not affect the validity of subsequent proceedings unless prejudice is shown.” Id. (quoting Downing v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 415 N.W.2d 625, 628 (Iowa 1987)).

2001See also State v. Blakley, 555 N.W.2d 221, 222 (Iowa 1996) (clarifying that demonstrated prejudice is a factor to be considered by the district court when reviewing a late-submitted statement of damages).

2001See Oliver v. Teleprompter Corp., 299 N.W.2d 683, 687 (Iowa 1980).

1999Co., 522 N.W.2d 828, 832 (Iowa 1994).

1985As the trial court found on sufficient evidence that ILIS discharged McClure without good cause, and as McClure was unable to obtain work elsewhere for the thirty-day period, he is entitled to the full sum of $2500, Kitchen v. Stockman National Life Insurance Co., 192 N.W.2d 796, 802 (Iowa 1971), together with interest and district court costs (not including attorney fees).