1. The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction only in cases in chancery, and constitutes a court for the correction of errors at law. The jurisdiction of the supreme court is coextensive with the state.
2. A civil or criminal action or special proceeding filed with the supreme court for appeal or review may be transferred by the supreme court to the court of appeals by issuing an order of transfer. The jurisdiction of the supreme court in the matter ceases upon the filing of that order by the clerk of the supreme court. A matter which has been transferred to the court of appeals pursuant to order of the supreme court is not thereafter subject to the jurisdiction of the supreme court, except as provided in subsection 4.
3. The supreme court shall prescribe rules for the transfer of matters to the court of appeals. These rules may provide for the selective transfer of individual cases and may provide for the transfer of cases according to subject matter or other general criteria. A rule shall not provide for the transfer of a matter other than by an order of transfer under subsection 2.
4. A party to an appeal decided by the court of appeals may, as a matter of right, file an application with the supreme court for further review.
a. An application for further review in an appeal from a child in need of assistance or\n\nTue Dec 09 22:00:11 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 602 (74, 2) 27 JUDICIAL BRANCH, §602.4106\n\ntermination of parental rights proceeding shall not be granted by the supreme court unless filed within ten days following the filing of the decision of the court of appeals.
b. In all other cases, an application for further review shall not be granted by the supreme court unless the application was filed within twenty days following the filing of the decision of the court of appeals.
5. The court of appeals shall extend the time for filing of an application if the court of appeals determines that a failure to timely file an application was due to the failure of the clerk of the court of appeals to notify the prospective applicant of the filing of the decision.
6. The supreme court shall prescribe rules of appellate procedure which shall govern further review by the supreme court of decisions of the court of appeals. These rules shall contain, but need not be limited to, a specification of the grounds upon which further review may, in the discretion of the supreme court, be granted. 83 Acts, ch 186, §5102, 10201; 98 Acts, ch 1115, §7, 21; 2003 Acts, ch 25, §2; 2006 Acts, ch 1129, §5 Referred to in §602.5103, 602.5106 \n
Notes of Decisions
Chariton Feed & Grain, Inc. v. Harder, 369 N.W.2d 777 (Iowa 1985).
· cites it 18× “Chariton Feed points to Iowa Code section 602.4102, which delineates the right to our further review of court of appeals decisions.”
State v. Effler, 769 N.W.2d 880 (Iowa 2009).
· cites it 10× “Under the deflective system of review established by the legislature, the court of appeals' jurisdiction is limited to those matters for which an appeal or review proceeding properly has been brought before the supreme court, and for which the supreme court pursuant to section…”
Welch v. Lund, 616 F.3d 756 (8th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 3× “Iowa Code §§ 602.4102 (2), 5103(3); Iowa R.”
Bredberg v. Pepsico, Inc., 551 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa 1996).
· cites it 3× “In its ruling on the alternative motions for new trial, the court found the jury’s verdict did not fail to effectuate substantial justice as the facts were in dispute and the jury could assign fault to any party or parties it found accountable under the law. PepsiCo and Pepsi…”
Wieseler v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp., 540 N.W.2d 445 (Iowa 1995).
· cites it 3× “See Iowa Code § 602.4102 (2). The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”
East Broadway Corp. v. Taco Bell Corp., 542 N.W.2d 816 (Iowa 1996).
· cites it 3× “See Iowa Code § 602.4102 (2) (1993). Finding the rent was primarily based on the fixed rent, the court of appeals held there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of an implied covenant for continued operation and reversed the district court’s judgment.”
Fort Madison Bank & Trust Co. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 543 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 1996).
· cites it 6× “See Iowa Code § 602.4102 (2). That court reversed the district court's judgment, holding Farm Bureau was not entitled to an offset for either the Tin Shed structured settlement proceeds or the amount Berta's estate would recover from David's estate pursuant to the $300,000…”
State v. Johnson, 539 N.W.2d 160 (Iowa 1995).
· cites it 2× “See Iowa Code § 602.4102 (4). II. Admissibility of the videotaped prior consistent statement as rebuttal evidence.”
In Re the Marriage of Farr, 542 N.W.2d 828 (Iowa 1996).
· cites it 3× “See Iowa Code § 602.4102 (2). The court of appeals reversed the district court’s judgment and held the court erred by reinstating Ronald’s previously decreed property settlement and permanent alimony obligations.”
State v. Williams, 652 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “28; Iowa Code § 602.4102 (4) (1999). Generally speaking, once proceden-do issued in the initial appeal, our opinion would become law of the case, binding upon not only the lower courts but upon this court in a later appeal.”
— Iowa Code § 602.4102(1) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 602.4102(2) — 3 cases
State v. Effler, 769 N.W.2d 880 (Iowa 2009).
“Under the deflective system of review established by the legislature, the court of appeals' jurisdiction is limited to those matters for which an appeal or review proceeding properly has been brought before the supreme court, and for which the supreme court pursuant to section…”
Chariton Feed & Grain, Inc. v. Harder, 369 N.W.2d 777 (Iowa 1985).
“Chariton Feed points to Iowa Code section 602.4102, which delineates the right to our further review of court of appeals decisions.”
— Iowa Code § 602.4102(4) — 9 cases
Chariton Feed & Grain, Inc. v. Harder, 369 N.W.2d 777 (Iowa 1985).
“Chariton Feed points to Iowa Code section 602.4102, which delineates the right to our further review of court of appeals decisions.”
State v. Effler, 769 N.W.2d 880 (Iowa 2009).
“Under the deflective system of review established by the legislature, the court of appeals' jurisdiction is limited to those matters for which an appeal or review proceeding properly has been brought before the supreme court, and for which the supreme court pursuant to section…”
Bredberg v. Pepsico, Inc., 551 N.W.2d 321 (Iowa 1996).
“In its ruling on the alternative motions for new trial, the court found the jury’s verdict did not fail to effectuate substantial justice as the facts were in dispute and the jury could assign fault to any party or parties it found accountable under the law. PepsiCo and Pepsi…”
Wieseler v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp., 540 N.W.2d 445 (Iowa 1995).
“See Iowa Code § 602.4102 (2). The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.”
East Broadway Corp. v. Taco Bell Corp., 542 N.W.2d 816 (Iowa 1996).
“See Iowa Code § 602.4102 (2) (1993). Finding the rent was primarily based on the fixed rent, the court of appeals held there was no substantial evidence to support the finding of an implied covenant for continued operation and reversed the district court’s judgment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.