Hudson test in Iowa

2025See Top of Iowa Coop. v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454, 470 (Iowa 2000). 11 Hudson cites Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(1) for the proposition that it preserved error because “[a]ppeal was timely filed challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain findings, with or without having objected to same by motion or otherwise.” 12 Traetow’s affidavit—which the district court cited in denying Hudson’s motion for summary judgment—stated that “Artesian Earthworks, LLC entered into an oral contract with Summers’ Enterprise, Inc. for Summers’ Enterprise, Inc. to furnish equipment for use b

2025Hudson did not respond to either motion before filing its notice of appeal. 17 Relying on its unpreserved contract claim, Hudson responds that “there could not have been a meeting of the minds or an agreement that Summers’ invoices would accrue interest at the rate of 24% per annum.” And, according to Hudson, Summers’s misstatement about the interest is irrelevant. 13 will direct the district court to enter a nunc pro tunc order to correct the judgment entry.” Id.

2025“An error is clerical in nature if it is not the product of judicial reasoning and determination.” State v. Hess, 533 N.W.2d 525, 527 (Iowa 1995). “[W]hen the record unambiguously reflects that a clerical error has occurred, we 16 In the same order, the court denied Hudson’s motion for extension of time to respond to Summers’s motions for order nunc pro tunc and to enlarge.

2021See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Lopez, 907 N.W.2d 112 , 116 (Iowa 2018).

2016Relying upon the case then most relevant, Pursell Construction, Inc. v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co., 596 N.W.2d 67, 69 (Iowa 1999), the district court found AMCO had no duty to defend or indemnify Hudson or SG.

1985See Humphrey, 355 N.W.2d at 568 .

1984The majority concludes that the state-interest issue is only secondary, stating "[i]t is perhaps unnecessary, under our analysis, to explore the state interests involved." The "analysis" which the majority says makes it unnecessary to address the issue is apparently that the advertisements are actually misleading under the first prong of the Central Hudson test, therefore not subject to any first amendment protection regardless of a supporting state interest. *575 See Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 563 , 100 S.Ct. at 2350 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 349 .

1984The majority concludes that the state-interest issue is only secondary, stating "[i]t is perhaps unnecessary, under our analysis, to explore the state interests involved." The "analysis" which the majority says makes it unnecessary to address the issue is apparently that the advertisements are actually misleading under the first prong of the Central Hudson test, therefore not subject to any first amendment protection regardless of a supporting state interest. *575 See Central Hudson, 447 U.S. at 563 , 100 S.Ct. at 2350 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 349 .