related claim in Iowa

2016Yet, “[w]e review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant’s requested instructions for an abuse of discretion.” Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006).

2015Yet, “[w]e review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant’s requested instructions for an abuse of discretion.” Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006).

2015Compare Deboom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2009) (stating that review is for correction of errors at law ■ and that it is “error for a- court to refuse to give a requested instruction where it correctly states the law, has application to the case, and is not-stated elsewhere in the instructions”), and Banks v. Beckwith, 762 N.W.2d 149,151 (Iowa 2009) (analyzing failure to give res ipsa loquitur instruction for correction of errors at law), with Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006) (“We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the

2015Compare Deboom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2009) (stating that review is for correction of errors at law and that it is “error for a court to refuse to give a requested instruction where it correctly states the law, has application to the case, and is not stated elsewhere in the instructions” (internal quotations omitted)), and Banks v. Beckwith, 762 N.W.2d 149, 151 (Iowa 2009) (analyzing failure to give instruction for correction of errors at law), with Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006) (“We review the related claim that the trial court should have

2014“We review a claim that the district court gave an instruction not supported by the evidence for correction of errors at law.” Pavone v. Kirke, 801 N.W.2d 477, 494 (Iowa 2011). “ ‘We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant’s requested instructions for an abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Marin, 788 N.W.2d 833, 836 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006)).

2013“We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant’s requested instructions for an abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Marin, 788 N.W.2d 833, 836 (Iowa 2010) (citations omitted); see also In re Det. of Palmer, 691 N.W.2d 413, 416 (Iowa 2005) (“We also review a district court’s failure to give a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.”).

2021Issue preclusion is a related doctrine that “prevents a party ‘from relitigating in a subsequent action issues raised and resolved in [a] previous action.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Soults Farms, Inc. v. Schafer, 797 N.W.2d 92, 103 (Iowa 2011)).

2016See Iowa Coal, 555 N.W.2d at 442 (citing in support Westway, 314 N.W.2d at 401 , and Leuchtenmacher, 460 N.W.2d at 860 ).

2016See Iowa Coal, 555 N.W.2d at 442 (citing in support Westway, 314 N.W.2d at 401 , and Leuchtenmacher, 460 N.W.2d at 860 ).

2016See Iowa Coal, 555 N.W.2d at 442 (citing in support Westway, 314 N.W.2d at 401 , and Leuchtenmacher, 460 N.W.2d at 860 ).

2016See Iowa Coal, 555 N.W.2d at 442 (citing in support Westway, 314 N.W.2d at 401 , and Leuchtenmacher, 460 N.W.2d at 860 ).

2016See Iowa Coal, 555 N.W.2d at 442 (citing in support Westway, 314 N.W.2d at 401 , and Leuchtenmacher, 460 N.W.2d at 860 ).

2015Compare Deboom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2009) (stating that review is for correction of errors at law ■ and that it is “error for a- court to refuse to give a requested instruction where it correctly states the law, has application to the case, and is not-stated elsewhere in the instructions”), and Banks v. Beckwith, 762 N.W.2d 149,151 (Iowa 2009) (analyzing failure to give res ipsa loquitur instruction for correction of errors at law), with Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006) (“We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the

2015Compare Deboom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2009) (stating that review is for correction of errors at law and that it is “error for a court to refuse to give a requested instruction where it correctly states the law, has application to the case, and is not stated elsewhere in the instructions” (internal quotations omitted)), and Banks v. Beckwith, 762 N.W.2d 149, 151 (Iowa 2009) (analyzing failure to give instruction for correction of errors at law), with Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006) (“We review the related claim that the trial court should have

2015Compare Deboom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2009) (stating that review is for correction of errors at law ■ and that it is “error for a- court to refuse to give a requested instruction where it correctly states the law, has application to the case, and is not-stated elsewhere in the instructions”), and Banks v. Beckwith, 762 N.W.2d 149,151 (Iowa 2009) (analyzing failure to give res ipsa loquitur instruction for correction of errors at law), with Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006) (“We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the

2015Compare Deboom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2009) (stating that review is for correction of errors at law and that it is “error for a court to refuse to give a requested instruction where it correctly states the law, has application to the case, and is not stated elsewhere in the instructions” (internal quotations omitted)), and Banks v. Beckwith, 762 N.W.2d 149, 151 (Iowa 2009) (analyzing failure to give instruction for correction of errors at law), with Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006) (“We review the related claim that the trial court should have

2015Compare Deboom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2009) (stating that review is for correction of errors at law ■ and that it is “error for a- court to refuse to give a requested instruction where it correctly states the law, has application to the case, and is not-stated elsewhere in the instructions”), and Banks v. Beckwith, 762 N.W.2d 149,151 (Iowa 2009) (analyzing failure to give res ipsa loquitur instruction for correction of errors at law), with Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006) (“We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the

2015Compare Deboom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2009) (stating that review is for correction of errors at law and that it is “error for a court to refuse to give a requested instruction where it correctly states the law, has application to the case, and is not stated elsewhere in the instructions” (internal quotations omitted)), and Banks v. Beckwith, 762 N.W.2d 149, 151 (Iowa 2009) (analyzing failure to give instruction for correction of errors at law), with Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006) (“We review the related claim that the trial court should have

2014“We review a claim that the district court gave an instruction not supported by the evidence for correction of errors at law.” Pavone v. Kirke, 801 N.W.2d 477, 494 (Iowa 2011). “ ‘We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant’s requested instructions for an abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Marin, 788 N.W.2d 833, 836 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006)).

2014“We review a claim that the district court gave an instruction not supported by the evidence for correction of errors at law.” Pavone v. Kirke, 801 N.W.2d 477, 494 (Iowa 2011). “ We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant’s requested instructions for an abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Marin, 788 N.W.2d 888, 836 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006)).

2013“We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant’s requested instructions for an abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Marin, 788 N.W.2d 833, 836 (Iowa 2010) (citations omitted); see also In re Det. of Palmer, 691 N.W.2d 413, 416 (Iowa 2005) (“We also review a district court’s failure to give a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.”).

2012“We review challenges to jury instructions for correction of errors at law. ‘We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant’s requested instructions for an abuse of discretion.’ ” State v. Mann, 788 N.W.2d 833, 836 (Iowa 2010) (citations omitted); see also In re Det. of Palmer, 691 N.W.2d 413, 416 (Iowa 2005) (“We also review a district court’s failure to give a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.”).

2015“We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant’s requested instructions for an abuse of discretion.” Id.

2014Id.

2016We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant’s requested instructions for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Becker, 818 N.W.2d 135, 140 (Iowa 2012).

2014Id.

2015See id.; but see Tamco Pork II, LLC v. Heartland Co-op, No. 14-0412, 2015 WL 4481571, at *2-5 (Iowa Ct. App. July 22, 2015) (“There is a lurking inconsistency in our law regarding the scrutiny applied to the district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction.”).

2015See Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006), but see Tamco 5 Third-party defendant Fieldstone did not join in the settlement; following a bench trial, Westlake’s litigation with Fieldstone resulted in a judgment in Westlake’s favor for $253,000. 7 Pork II, LLC v. Heartland Co-op, No. 14-0412, 2015 WL 4481571, at *2-5 (Iowa Ct. App. July 22, 2015) (“There is a lurking inconsistency in our law regarding the scrutiny applied to the district court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction.”).

2021Issue preclusion is a related doctrine that “prevents a party ‘from relitigating in a subsequent action issues raised and resolved in [a] previous action.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Soults Farms, Inc. v. Schafer, 797 N.W.2d 92, 103 (Iowa 2011)).

2014Abuses occur “when the court exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” State v. Barnes, 791 N.W.2d 817, 827 (Iowa 2010).

2014“We review the related claim that the trial court should have given [a party’s] requested instructions for an abuse of discretion.” Crawford v. Yotty, 828 N.W.2d 295, 298 (Iowa 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2014See Wolf v. Wolf, 690 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa 2005); Wood v. Wood, 338 N.W.2d 123 (Iowa 1983).

2014The prosecutor recommended incarceration but did not make any statement concerning consecutive or concurrent sentences. “[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration [for the plea], such promise must be fulfilled.” State v. Horness, 600 N.W.2d 294, 298 (Iowa 1999).

2013“Error in giving or refusing to give a particular instruction warrants reversal unless the record shows the absence of prejudice.” Id. “ ‘When the error is not of constitutional magnitude, the test of prejudice is whether it sufficiently appears that the rights of the complaining party have been injuriously affected or that the party has suffered a miscarriage of justice.’” Id. (quoting State v. Gansz, 376 N.W.2d 887, 891 (Iowa 1985)).

2012Hasselman v. Hasselman, 596 N.W.2d 541, 545 (Iowa 1999).

2011Co., 686 N.W.2d 150, 160 (Iowa 2004) ("[W]e review a challenge to the district court's refusal to submit a jury instruction for correction of errors of law.”), with Summy v. City of Des Moines, 708 N.W.2d 333, 340 (Iowa 2006) ("We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant’s requested instructions for an abuse of discretion.”), and Anderson v. State, 692 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Iowa 2005) ("We review a court's refusal to give [a plaintiff's requested] instruction for an abuse of discretion.”).

2011We review the related claim that the trial court should have given the defendant’s requested instructions for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Marin, 788 N.W.2d 833, 836 (Iowa 2010). 2 Error in refusing to give a jury instruction “does not warrant reversal unless it results in prejudice to the complaining party.” Koenig v. Koenig, 766 N.W.2d 635, 637 (Iowa 2009).

2003See State v. Campbell, 294 N.W.2d 803, 808-09 (Iowa 1980).

2002See Dartmouth College, 257 Iowa at 535 , 133 N.W.2d at 689 (defining “avulsion”).

2002See Dartmouth College, 257 Iowa at 535 , 133 N.W.2d at 689 (defining “avulsion”).

1980See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); State v. O’Kelly, 211 N.W.2d 589, 594 (Iowa 1973).

1980See Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970); State v. O’Kelly, 211 N.W.2d 589, 594 (Iowa 1973).