Ragan v. Petersen
Court of Appeals of Iowa
1DissentStreit, Judge
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to continue the trial of a case pending for almost three years. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 183(a) provides “[a] continuance may be allowed for any cause not growing out of the fault or negligence of the applicant, which satisfies the court that substantial justice will be more nearly obtained.” State v. Ware, 338 N.W.2d 707, 714 (Iowa 1983). A ruling denying a motion for a continuance is discretionary and calls for reversal only upon a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Teeters, 487…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State v. CottSupreme Court of Iowa · 1979
- State v. WareSupreme Court of Iowa · 1983
- Rath v. SholtySupreme Court of Iowa · 1972
- State v. TeetersSupreme Court of Iowa · 1992
- Hutchinson v. Smith Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.