ruling error in Iowa

2025See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002).

2025See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002).

2023See, e.g., State v. Booker, No 20-1551, 2022 WL 468725 , at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2022); State v. McCunn, No. 19-1649, 2022 WL 468736 , at *7–8 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2022) (“After [State v.] Neuendorf [ 509 N.W.2d 743, 747 (Iowa 1993)], the presumption of prejudice no longer applies; the defendant must show (1) an error in the court’s ruling on the challenge for cause; and (2) either (a) the challenged juror served on the jury, or (b) the remaining jury was biased as a result of the defendant’s use of all of the peremptory challenges.”(citation omitted)); State v. Morrow, No. 14-2126, 2

2017In order to overcome the court’s ruling, “the defendant must show (1) an error in the court’s ruling on the challenge for cause; and (2) either (a) the challenged juror served on the jury, or (b) the remaining jury was biased as a result of the defendant’s use of all of the peremptory challenges.” Id. at 108 ; see also State v. Neuendorf, 509 N.W.2d 743, 746 (Iowa 1993) (“In the absence of some factual showing that this circumstance resulted in a juror being seated who was not impartial, the existence of prejudice is entirely speculative.”).

2016See Hyde v. Anania, 578 N.W.2d 647, 648 (Iowa 1998) (“If the [small claims] action is a law case, we review the district judge’s ruling on error.”).

2007If the action is a law case, we review the district judge’s ruling on error.” Hyde v. Anania, 578 N.W.2d 647, 648 (Iowa 1998) (citation omitted).

2018See State v. Tillman , 514 N.W.2d 105 , 108 (Iowa 1994) (stating, on direct appeal, "the defendant must show (1) an error in the court's ruling on the challenge for cause; and (2) either (a) the challenged juror served on the jury, or (b) the remaining jury was biased as a result of the defendant's use of all of the peremptory challenges").

2018In order to overcome the trial court’s ruling, “the defendant must show (1) an error in the court’s ruling on the challenge for cause; and (2) either (a) the challenged juror served on the jury, or (b) the remaining jury was biased as a result of the defendant’s use of all of the peremptory challenges.” Id. at 108 .

2026“In considering whether the admission of hearsay is reversible error, we have held that notwithstanding the presumption of prejudice from the admission of such evidence, the erroneously admitted hearsay will not be considered prejudicial if substantially the same evidence is properly in the record.” State v. Newell, 710 N.W.2d 6, 19 (Iowa 2006). 9 III.

2022See Newell, 710 N.W.2d at 19 .

2025See Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012).

2024In his appellant’s brief, Brad acknowledged he did not receive a ruling on his claim that a jury should decide his affirmative defenses: “The district court’s error was not that it erroneously overruled these defenses on the way to summary judgment, but that it never addressed them at all.” From there, he urged that reversal and remand was required “to give him a day in court on these issues.” Brad did some cleanup in his reply brief, asserting, “[T]he district court ruled on Brad’s affirmative defenses by considering and rejecting them even though it failed to substantively address them.” Bra

2025As an appellee, [the State] cannot challenge the adverse ruling on [the grandparents’] appeal; so we consider neither [the State’s] position nor its written response.” In re J.L., 973 N.W.2d 895 , 899 n.1 (Iowa Ct. App. 2022); see also Brutsche v. Inc. Town of Coon Rapids, 264 N.W. 696, 699 (1936) (“It seems to be the settled rule in this state that one party cannot avail himself of an appeal prosecuted by the other party to ask a review of that portion of the judgment adverse to himself.”); Becker v. Cent.

2025See State v. Canady, 4 N.W.3d 661, 668 (Iowa 2024) (“We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion.” (citation omitted)); State v. Berry, 549 N.W.2d 316, 319 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (reviewing the district court’s ruling applying rule 5.613(b) for an abuse of discretion).

2025See UE Loc. 893/IUP v. State, 928 N.W.2d 51, 60 (Iowa 2019).

2023State v. Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d 518, 526 (Iowa 2011) (“Based on the exchange quoted above, the district court had no reason to believe that [defendant] wanted anything further done with respect to the prosecutor’s improper question.”).

2022State v. Rhode, 503 N.W.2d 27, 35 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993).

2020See Metz v. Amoco Oil Co., 581 N.W.2d 597, 600 (Iowa 1998) (holding error not preserved when “motion to vacate did not set forth any grounds on which relief could be granted”). 9 B.

2018See Iowa Code § 633.33 (2015); In re Guardianship of M.D., 797 N.W.2d 121, 126-27 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).

2018Where, as of robbery for forcibly taking money to satisfy a debt owed by the victim to the taker”); Westmoreland v. State, 538 S.E.2d 119, 121 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (“To allow a ‘claim of right’ defense to an offense, such as robbery by sudden snatching, within which the use of force is implicit would sanction the use of force to claim the property.”); Brighter, 608 P.2d at 859 .

2017See State v. Griffin, 564 N.W.2d 370, 372 (Iowa 1997) (“We review the defendant’s constitutional challenges de novo.”).

2017See State v. Daly, 623 N.W.2d 799, 800 (Iowa 2001) (holding ruling on motion in limine was beyond question as the court’s final ruling where defense counsel asked if the ruling was the final order of the court and the court responded affirmatively).

2016See In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493 (Iowa 2000).

2014“It has long been settled law that a criminal defendant must testify and confront the impeachment evidence before seeking an appellate determination of admissibility.” State v. Derby, 800 N.W.2d 52, 59 (Iowa 2011).