law of appeal error in Iowa

2026He cites Hope’s conduct before 2023 as ground for a finding of contempt: “Hope blocked all meaningful contact between Francis and the children for over a decade, rendering the 2014 order meaningless.” Because that argument was 7 not presented to the district court, it is not properly before us. 1 See State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“Nothing is more basic in the law of appeal and error than the axiom that a party cannot sing a song to us that was not first sung in trial court.”).

2026See State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“Nothing is more basic in the law of appeal and error than the axiom that a party cannot sing a song to us that was not first sung in trial court.”).

2020“It 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.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002); see also State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“Nothing is more basic in the law of appeal and error than the axiom that a party cannot sing a song to us that was not first sung in trial court.”).

2018See Meier v. Senecaut , 641 N.W.2d 532 , 537 (Iowa 2002) ("[I]ssues must normally be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal."); State v. Rutledge , 600 N.W.2d 324 , 325 (Iowa 1999) ("Nothing is more basic in the law of appeal and error than the axiom that a party cannot sing a song to us that was not first sung in trial court.").

2021“It 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.” See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002); accord Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 864 (Iowa 2012).

2020“It 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.” See Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002); accord Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 864 (Iowa 2012).

2025“Nothing is more basic in the law of appeal and error than the axiom that a party cannot sing a song to us that was not first sung in trial court.” State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324 , 325 2 Citing New York Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 28 (2022), the district court wrote that it was “inclined to view the modern epidemic of school gun violence as one of the ‘various crises of human affairs’ to which the Second Amendment can ‘be adapted.’” 5 (Iowa 1999).

2024See Baker, 750 N.W.2d at 102 . 13 2.

2023See State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999) (“Nothing is more basic in the law of appeal and error than the axiom that a party cannot sing a song to us that was not first sung in trial court.”); see also State v. Marcott, No. 08-0402, 2008 WL 4571251, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2008) (finding a due- process challenge to the district court’s refusal to permit the defendant to present witness testimony at sentencing to be unpreserved due to failure to raise it before the district court).

2022The version of the rules 3 Doss v. State, 961 N.W.2d 701 , 709 (Iowa 2021). 4 Dewberry v. State, 941 N.W.2d 1 , 4 (Iowa 2019). 5 Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Schmidt v. State, 909 N.W.2d 778, 784 (Iowa 2018)). 6 Doss, 961 N.W.2d at 709. 7 Dewberry, 941 N.W.2d at 4. 8 State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999). 9 See id. at 327 (stating that, because error was not preserved, we reject the claim). 4 in effect at the time of the filings in this case superseded any rules or case law distinguishing between “proper” and “improper” rule 1.904(2) motions.10 As the State’s motion sough

2021Clark also suggests that we should consider he was pro se litigant for much of the time leading up to trial, claiming he “lacked a fundamental understanding . . . of what the consent order’s language actually meant.” See Lindstedt v. City of Granby, 238 F.3d 933, 937 (8th Cir. 2000) (considering that litigant was pro se when determining if sanction was appropriate, but also noting, “A pro se litigant is bound by the litigation rules as is a lawyer”).

2020“Nothing is more basic in the law of appeal and error than the axiom that a party cannot sing a song to us that was not first sung in trial court.” State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324, 325 (Iowa 1999); State v. Hall, 740 N.W.2d 200, 202 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (noting a party “may not allege error on an issue to which he acquiesced”).

2014At trial, Hansen’s argument with respect to an impermissible inference was addressed to the charge of first-degree murder.2 Even if we presume the objection also addressed the charge of second-degree murder, arguments similar to Hansen’s have been rejected by our supreme court in Henderson v. Scurr, 313 N.W.2d 522, 526 (Iowa 1981), and State v. Elam, 328 N.W.2d 314, 318 (Iowa 1982).

2014At trial, Hansen’s argument with respect to an impermissible inference was addressed to the charge of first-degree murder.2 Even if we presume the objection also addressed the charge of second-degree murder, arguments similar to Hansen’s have been rejected by our supreme court in Henderson v. Scurr, 313 N.W.2d 522, 526 (Iowa 1981), and State v. Elam, 328 N.W.2d 314, 318 (Iowa 1982).