author: STREIT, Justice.

text:
    Gail and Carroll HEINZ, Appellants, v. Roland HEINZ, Appellee.
    No. 01-1325.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    Nov. 14, 2002.

      Stephen R. Eckley and James G. Saw-telle of Duncan, Green, Brown, Langeness & Eckley, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants.
    Janice M. Thomas and Douglas A. Haag of Patterson, Lorentzen, Duffield, Tim-mons, Irish, Becker & Ordway, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellee.
   STREIT, Justice.

Carroll Heinz seriously injured his arm while helping out on his brother Roland’s farm when his arm became entangled in a speed jack. Carroll sued Roland for negligence in supplying unsafe equipment under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 392 (1965). Carroll argues the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction based on his allegation that Roland failed to make his equipment safe for use under section 392(a). Carroll also asserts the court erred in allowing a defense expert to testify a farmer should rely on the safety of farm implements purchased for use on a farm. Carroll contends the court erred in directing a verdict on his claim that Roland owed him a duty as an employer.

Finally, Carroll argues the court erred in directing a verdict on his premises liability claim. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for a new trial.

I. Background and Facts

Carroll Heinz worked on his brother Roland’s farm. Though Carroll had not farmed since childhood, he returned to Roland’s farm in 1997 and 1998 to help Roland during the harvest. In 1998, while the brothers were unloading a silo, Carroll was seriously injured. At the rear of the tractor Roland hooked up an old speed jack to the tractor’s power take-off. The speed jack consisted of a series of belts, pulleys, and drive shafts and was used to transfer power from the tractor to a piece of equipment used to move grain. It was covered only from above by a metal guard, which also shielded the works from sight. At one point the speed jack stopped working. Carroll reached down to inspect the equipment and his glove got caught under the speed jack’s metal guard. The machinery severely mangled Carroll’s arm.

Carroll and his wife sued Roland. Following a jury trial, the district court directed a verdict for Roland on Carroll’s claims based on premises liability and employer/employee duties. The court submitted only a negligence claim based on Restatement (Second) of Torts section 392(b). The jury returned a verdict in favor of Roland.

Carroll appeals. He contends the court erred in various evidentiary rulings related to the testimony of Roland’s expert witness, Dale Gumz. Carroll’s main complaint is that Gumz testified over objection about a legal standard. Carroll argues Gumz’s statement that farmers should rely on equipment safety devices was testimony constituting a legal opinion that sought to alter Roland’s standard of care. Carroll further argues the court erred in sustaining an objection to his cross-examination of Gumz on the same issue.

Carroll also contends the court denied his attempt on cross-examination to cast doubt on Gumz’s credibility by showing the jury Gumz had agreed to be an expert for Roland before Gumz received any of the information on which he ultimately based his opinion. Carroll asserts the court erred in sustaining objections to questions designed to show the shaft and shield did not conform to certain industry standards upon which Gumz relied in forming his opinions.

Next, Carroll argues the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on a theory of liability outlined in Restatement (Second) of Torts section 392. This section provides,

Chattel Dangerous for Intended Use. One who supplies to another, directly or through a third person, a chattel to be used for the supplier’s business purposes is subject to liability to those for whose use the chattel is supplied, or to those whom he should expect to be endangered by its probable use, for physical harm caused by the use of the chattel in the manner for which and by persons for whose use the chattel is supplied
(a) if the supplier fails to exercise reasonable care to make the chattel safe for the use for which it is supplied; or
(b) if he fails to exercise reasonable care to discover its dangerous condition or character, and to inform those whom he should expect to use it.

The district court submitted the negligence claim under subsection (b). Carroll complains the court should have submitted an instruction to include section 392(a) which would have informed the jury that Roland had a duty to exercise reasonable care in making his equipment safe. Carroll contends the finder-of-fact must decide whether this duty required Roland, exercising reasonable care, to make modifications to the speed jack.

Carroll also asserts the court erred when it directed a verdict on his claim that Roland owed him a duty as an employer. He argues there was sufficient evidence of an employer/employee relationship for the claim to go to the jury, including evidence that his work was not gratuitous; he helped Roland with the understanding that there was a steak dinner in the offing.

Finally, Carroll contends the court erred when it directed a verdict on the premises liability claim. Carroll argues there was sufficient evidence to support a finding on each element of the claim. Roland asserts error is not preserved on this issue.

II. Scope of Review

Our scope of review for all issues in this appeal challenging the trial court’s grant of the motion for directed verdict is for correction of errors at law. Rife v. D.T. Corner, Inc., 641 N.W.2d 761, 766 (Iowa 2002) (citing McClure v. Walgreen Co., 613 N.W.2d 225, 230 (Iowa 2000)). We consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. “If there is substantial evidence in the record to support each element of the claim, we must overrule the motion.” Id. If reasonable minds could reach different conclusions based upon the evidence presented, the issue must be submitted to the jury for determination. Id.

Our scope of review as to certain evidentiary rulings made by the trial court is for abuse of discretion. State v. Rodriquez, 636 N.W.2d 234, 239 (Iowa 2001) (citing Williams v. Hedican, 561 N.W.2d 817, 822 (Iowa 1997)). An abuse of discretion exists when the court exercises its discretion “on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Rodriquez, 636 N.W.2d at 239.

III. Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 392

Carroll requested a jury instruction based on Restatement (Second) of Torts sections 392(a) and (b). In interpreting section 392(a), the court concluded the duty to “make safe” means that a supplier of chattel must modify or retrofit. The court determined retrofitting was not an issue in the case because the law in Iowa does not impose a duty on a “supplier” of chattel to retrofit equipment. Accordingly, the trial court did not instruct the jury on section 392(a). The court only instructed the jury on the duty owed by a supplier of a chattel as articulated in section 392(b). Under this section Roland had a duty to do two things: (1) to inspect for a defect, and (2) to inform anyone expected to use it of any defects found. We must consider whether the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on Carroll’s theory of liability premised upon Restatement (Second) of Torts section 392(a).

We have cited Restatement section 392 with apparent approval in Maguire v. Pabst Brewing Co., 387 N.W.2d 565 (Iowa 1986), and in Spaur v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 510 N.W.2d 854 (Iowa 1994). In both cases, we concluded section 392 was not applicable because certain facts necessary to support such a claim were absent. Section 392 requires proof that the supplier of the chattel has “an interest in the consumer’s use of the product and this must be a continuing business interest.” Spaur, 510 N.W.2d at 864. In Maguire and Spaur, evidence necessary for a claim based on section 392 was lacking because in both cases possession or control of the chattel transferred to a third party. Spaur, 510 N.W.2d at 864 (supplier’s business purpose does not continue after possession or control of the chattel has been transferred to someone else); Maguire, 387 N.W.2d at 571 (meaning of “business purpose” within section 392 does not embrace situation where possession or control of chattel transferred to another).. We are called upon to decide whether Iowa law recognizes section 392 as an appropriate guide to determine whether a duty exists when a person is injured by a supplier’s chattel.

In general, we look to the Restatement not as the law but as a guide. At times, it may be appropriate to cite certain sections of the Restatement as they may assist in our determination of state law. See, e.g., Lovick v. Wil-Rich, 588 N.W.2d 688, 695-96 (Iowa 1999) (adopted restatement section to assist the jury in analyzing the reasonableness of manufacturer’s conduct after it acquires knowledge of defect in product post-sale). In.the ease before us, Carroll contends Roland breached the duty of care imposed upon him as a supplier of chattel. Section 392 articulates various factors to help in the determination of whether Roland negligently supplied the speed jack to Carroll: “A trial court has a duty to give the jury a clear understanding of what they need to decide.” Id. at 695 (citation omitted). The judge must give requested instructions to the jury if they embody the applicable law and are not found in other instructions. Id. Carroll requested an instruction based on sections 392(a) and (b). We find the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 392 to be useful in guiding the jury in cases dealing with the liability of a supplier of chattel for injuries suffered by those to whom the chattel was supplied.

We first address the interpretation of section 392. We note that we were unable to find any authority discussing the interpretation of section 392(a) or defining what it means to “make the chattel safe.” Sections 392(a) and (b) are not exclusive of one another. If we found that section 392(a) could be read alone, this could effectively impose liability upon a supplier for injuries caused by latent conditions not discoverable. That is, section 392(a) read independently would mean that a supplier is liable for an injury if the supplier failed to exercise reasonable care to make the chattel safe. The fact that a person is injured alone would indicate the supplier failed to exercise reasonable care to make the chattel safe. Such an interpretation would impose the same standard of strict liability upon a supplier as it does upon a manufacturer. Under a simple reading of section 392(a), a supplier would be liable for even latent defects in a product that a reasonable person would not discover. To the extent section 392 contemplates such a harsh result, we reject it and instead adopt a modified version of that provision.

We choose to impose in section 392(a) a duty to first inspect the chattel. Therefore, a supplier has a duty to use reasonable care to discover a dangerous condition or character. Then, upon finding such a condition, the supplier must either make the chattel safe or warn expected users. If the supplier undertakes to make the chattel safe, this may include modification and/or retrofitting. Under this interpretation, a supplier is not liable for injuries if a reasonable person would not have discovered the dangerous condition or character. A supplier is liable for injuries if he or she failed to use reasonable care to inspect the chattel and the supplier either faded to use reasonable care to make the chattel safe or to warn others. See Larner v. Torgerson, 93 Wash.2d 801, 613 P.2d 780, 783 (1980) (“Section 392 places upon the supplier the duty to make a reasonable inspection of the chattel and then either to repair any dangerous defects that he discovers or warn those who might be expected to use it of the defects.”).

We now determine whether the facts before us warrant an instruction under this section. The main inquiry is whether Roland is a “supplier” as the term is used in the Restatement. Section 388 of the Restatement defines a supplier as

any person who for any purpose or in any manner gives possession of a chattel for another’s use, or who permits another to use or occupy it while it is in his own possession or control....

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388 cmt. c. Section 392 restricts the definition of a “supplier” to include only those who give chattel to a third person to be used for the supplier’s business purposes.

Here, the facts support a finding that Roland was a supplier. We do not have before us a case similar to Maguire or Spaur in which control transferred to a third person. Roland, as the owner of the speed jack, controlled who could use it. Roland could also control the manner in which the speed jack was used and for what purposes it would be used. He explicitly gave Carroll use of the speed jack. With the speed jack, Carroll worked on Roland’s farm by unloading one of the silos. Carroll’s work inured solely to Roland’s benefit. Control and possession of the speed jack remained with Roland at all times. Roland presented no evidence to suggest he did not supply the chattel to Carroll to be used in furtherance of Roland’s business interests.

Because we have found Roland was a supplier of chattel used in his farm business, section 392(a) is applicable to the case before us. If there was evidence he failed to use reasonable care to inspect the chattel and to make it safe, the court erred in failing to submit to the jury a charge of negligence based upon Restatement (Second) of Torts section 392(a) and (b). It could be urged the jury already found Roland did not fail to discover a dangerous condition or fail to warn Carroll of the condition under section 392(b). However, there are multiple reasons the jury could have found Roland not liable under 392(b) and we will not speculate as to the jury’s findings. Because sections 392(a) and (b) are so intertwined given our interpretation of the Restatement, the court must submit a jury instruction based on both sections. A jury instruction including both sections 392(a) and (b) may have changed the ultimate outcome of the case. We reverse and remand for a new trial.

IY. Expert Witness Testimony

Carroll argues the court erred in evidentiary rulings admitting testimony offered by a defense expert and limiting Carroll’s cross-examination of that expert. Because we remanded this case for a new trial, these matters are likely to arise again. As such we will rule on the eviden-tiary issues raised by Carroll. Carroll argues the court erred in permitting the expert to testify to a legal conclusion. Carroll also asserts the court erred in refusing to allow him to question the expert on the date of his retention by the defense and on the standards he reviewed in forming his opinion.

In general, whether a witness may testify as an expert with reference to a particular topic is within the trial court’s discretion. See Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 868 (Iowa 1996). “We are committed to a liberal rule on admission of opinion testimony, and only in clear cases of abuse would the admission of such evidence be found to be prejudicial.” Leaf v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 590 N.W.2d 525, 531 (Iowa 1999) (quoting Iowa-Illinois Gas & Elec. v. Black & Veatch, 497 N.W.2d 821, 827 (Iowa 1993)).

Carroll ■ argued Roland did not satisfy the applicable-standard of care in failing “to make his farm equipment safe.” Carroll called Bruce Johnson, an expert witness, to testify on this issue. Plaintiffs’ counsel asked Johnson whether there was “anything that could have been done to make the shaft safe?” Johnson answered the existing shaft “was not adequate.” Johnson also testified Roland should have modified the equipment before the accident by constructing a shield of sorts out of PVC pipe.

In response to Johnson’s expert testimony, Roland called Dale Gumz as an expert witness. Defense counsel asked Gumz: “Should a farmer be able to rely on the safety device that he purchases with the particular product or implement?” Counsel for plaintiffs objected arguing the question called for a legal conclusion. The court overruled the objection and Gumz answered:

The farmer not only should rely on the safety device, but we want him — as safety engineers ... to rely on the safety devices that are sold with the equipment and not to modify or change or jury-rig changes, other types of safety devices. We want him to use the original manufacturer’s equipment.

Carroll argues the question Gumz answered called for a legal conclusion. Gumz’s testimony at trial dealt only with the issue of whether Roland should have modified his speed jack. His testimony regarded manufacturers’ expectations with respect to farmers’ use of their products. See Wright v. Brooke Group Ltd., 652 N.W.2d 159, 167 (Iowa 2002) (while not determinative, consumer expectations remain one factor to consider in design defect cases). Iowa Rules of Evidence provide,

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

Iowa R. Evid. 5.702 (2002). In other words, “[e]xpert testimony is admissible if it is reliable and ‘will assist the trier of fact in resolving an issue.’ ” Rodriquez, 636 N.W.2d at 245 (quoting State v. Rains, 574 N.W.2d 904, 916 (Iowa 1998)). “Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.” Iowa R. Evid. 5.704.

Carroll does not argue Gumz was unqualified to give such testimony. See Hyler, 548 N.W.2d at 868 (witness must be qualified to answer the particular question propounded). Instead, he contends Gumz impermissibly testified to a legal conclusion. We disagree. Gumz merely gave his expert opinion on whether a farmer should rely on the safety of farm equipment. His testimony dealt with manufacturers’ and farmers’ expectations in the use of farm equipment. Such testimony is not a legal conclusion properly made only by the trier of fact.

Gumz is an expert in safety engineering matters, mechanical engineering design matters, and accident investigations. Safety and design matters of farm implements are not issues within the average layperson’s knowledge. As a safety expert, Gumz’s testimony assisted the trier of fact to understand the desired manner of use for a farm implement as intended by the manufacturer. Based on these facts, we find Gumz was properly allowed to testify on the issue of manufacturers’ and farmers’ expectations for use of farm implements and their safety devices.

Carroll also argues the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to cross-examine Gumz on his opinion testimony regarding farmers’ rights to rely on the safety of farm equipment and what standards he reviewed in preparing for his testimony or in forming his opinions. Because the court properly admitted the opinion testimony, it also should have permitted Carroll to question Gumz on these issues.

The purpose of cross-examination is to test the veracity of statements a witness made and to weaken or disprove the opposing case. 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 447, at 422 (2002). Opposing counsel is free to cross-examine an expert witness and challenge the strength of his or her testimony. See, e.g., Olson v. Nieman’s, Ltd., 579 N.W.2d 299, 309 (Iowa 1998) (opposing counsel may question expert on some flawed assumptions in testifying going to the weight of the expert’s opinion). This includes the ability of opposing counsel to question an expert on the standards that he or she reviewed before forming an opinion. None of these issues pertains to the admissibility of such evidence, but only to the weight to be given such expert opinion. Id.; Hutchison v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 514 N.W.2d 882, 885 (Iowa 1994). The cross-examination of Gumz as to what formed his opinion should have been allowed.

Finally, Carroll argues the trial court erred in limiting his cross-examination of Gumz as to the date defense counsel retained him as an expert witness. It could be contended Carroll’s offer of proof on this issue, though scant, was suggesting that Gumz was a hired gun — a person paid for favorable testimony. Carroll offered this testimony to prove the expert was willing to testify in favor of the defense before knowing the facts of the case. Such testimony is admissible to challenge an expert’s credibility and should have been allowed.

V. Employer/Employee Claim

We now turn to the issue of whether the court erred in directing a verdict in Roland’s favor on Carroll’s claim for breach of duty by an employer. On appeal, Carroll contends he and his brother had an employer/employee relationship. Carroll asserts he agreed to help Roland with the harvest in return for a steak dinner. At trial, Carroll testified there was no contract for hire regarding the work he would do on his brother’s, farm. He also testified it was more of a “helping relationship” for which he did not expect to be paid. Carroll was under no obligation to do any work and could leave the farm at any time. The trial court determined the relationship between the brothers “was an open, voluntary relationship and association ... it was purely voluntary.” As such, the court granted Roland’s motion for directed verdict on this claim.

Carroll asserts the trial court should not have granted a directed verdict on his employee/employer claim. Whether an employee/employer relationship exists is not determined by one particular fact or circumstance. 30 C.J.S. Employer-Employee § 6, at 19 (1992). Rather, we look to all the circumstances of a case to decide the nature of the relationship. Id. at 20. In making this determination, we look foremost to the intention of the parties. Henderson v. Jennie Edmundson Hosp., 178 N.W.2d 429, 431 (Iowa 1970). We may also consider, for example, the actual relationship that exists between the parties and the extent to which the parties are economically interdependent. 30 C.J.S. Employer-Employee § 6, at 20. We may also consider the fact of compensation and the manner of paying it. Uhe v. Cent. States Theatre Corp., 258 Iowa 580, 581, 139 N.W.2d 538, 539 (1966); 30 C.J.S. Employer-Employee § 11, at 24.

The record unequivocally reflects Roland never intended or considered their relationship as that of employer and employee. Carroll testified he did not view himself as any type of employee. Even though Roland had a right to tell Carroll what to do and how to do it, this does not transform their relationship into that of employer and employee. Roland did not pay any wages to Carroll for his help during the harvest. Carroll admitted he did not expect to be paid for his work. There is no evidence in the record to suggest Carroll and Roland intended their relationship to be one of employer/employee. A promised steak dinner with your brother at the end of a long harvest day is insufficient to transform Carroll into an employee. Given these facts, we conclude Carroll was not Roland’s employee.

Ordinarily, the question of whether an employment relationship exists is one of fact that should be decided by the trier of fact. See Fletcher v. Apache Hose & Belting Co., 519 N.W.2d 839, 840 (Iowa Ct.App.1994) (determination of whether employment relationship existed between employee of temporary service agency and agency’s customer was factual question to be determined based on evidence); see also Ctr. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 618 N.W.2d 505, 511 (N.D.2000) (existence of employment relationship is ordinarily a question of fact); Stenvik v. Constant, 502 N.W.2d 416, 420 (Minn.CtApp.1993) (existence of employment relationship is question of fact if it turns on disputed testimony). In this case, the judge reviewed the evidence on the issue. Finding insufficient evidence to conclude Carroll was Roland’s employee, the court directed a verdict in favor of Roland. See Vasconez v. Mills, 651 N.W.2d 48, 52 (Iowa 2002) (“if, at the close of all the evidence, the record is insufficient to support a party’s theory of recovery or defense, the court need not submit the theory to the jury and may direct a verdict on the issue as a matter of law”). As a matter of law, we conclude there were not enough facts for the jury to decide this issue. As such, we conclude the trial court correctly granted Roland’s motion for directed verdict on the employer/employee claim. We affirm.

VI. Premises Liability Claim

Finally, Carroll argues the trial court erred in directing a verdict against Carroll on his premises liability claim. We decline to address this issue finding Carroll waived this claim. Roland moved for a directed verdict on the premises liability claim at the conclusion of Carroll’s case in chief. Carroll did not resist the motion on the express condition that the court allow Carroll to submit his claim under section 392. In other words, Carroll said he would not object to a directed verdict on the premises liability claim if the court instructed the jury on all of section 392. The court granted Roland’s motion for directed verdict.

After the parties presented all of the evidence, the trial court submitted an instruction to the jury based only upon section 392(b). This instruction was inconsistent with the condition Carroll articulated when he responded to the motion for directed verdict. When the court did not satisfy Carroll’s condition, Carroll’s attorney had a duty to object to the court’s proposed instructions and request inclusion of the premises liability claim. Carroll waived this error by failing to object to the unsatisfactory instruction. See State v. Romeo, 542 N.W.2d 543, 552-53 (Iowa 1996) (counsel waived error when he failed to object to prosecutor’s allegedly improper remarks at the time they were made); State v. Jewett, 219 N.W.2d 559, 560 (Iowa 1974) (“it is sound law and logic that a party may not sit by and permit the court to commit inadvertent error without protest, and then complain for the first time in his motion for a new trial or in the appellate court”); In re J.D.B., 584 N.W.2d 577, 581 (Iowa Ct.App.1998) (waiver of error where party failed to object to the original or continued removal of child and did not resist the adjudication on the grounds pled in CINA petition). We affirm.

VII. Conclusion

Given our interpretation of the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 392, the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on sections 392(a) and (b). We reverse and remand for a new trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Gumz’s expert opinion as to the intent behind manufacturers’ design of farm implements and safety devices. The court, however, should have allowed opposing counsel to cross-examine Gumz on that issue. Carroll also should have been permitted to question Gumz on the date Roland hired Gumz to testify as an expert for the defense and the standards Gumz reviewed in forming his opinions. Carroll waived his premises liability claim by not objecting to the court’s jury instructions. Finally, the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict in favor of Roland on the employer/employee claim. We affirm on these issues.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

      . However, without explicitly addressing what it means to make chattel safe, one New York case indicated reasonable care to make the chattel safe “may include the furnishing of safety devices to avoid an unreasonable risk of harm when the chattel is used in the manner for which it is intended.” Snyder v. Kramer, 94 A.D.2d 860, 463 N.Y.S.2d 591, 593 (N.Y.App.Div.1983). Research fails to reveal anything but cases focusing primarily on the failure to warn. See, e.g., Fritz v. Yeager, 790 A.2d 469 (Del.2002).

      . This is analogous to the situation where no direct evidence of negligence is available so the plaintiff instead uses circumstantial evidence to prove negligence. One such type of circumstantial evidence is res ipsa loquitur. Novak Heating & Air Conditioning v. Carrier Corp., 622 N.W.2d 495, 498 (Iowa 2001). Res ipsa loquitur applies “when (1) .the injury is caused by an instrumentality under the exclusive control of the defendant, and (2) the occurrence is such that in the ordinary course of things would not happen if reasonable care had been used.” Id.

      . The duty to make a reasonable inspection is analogous to the duty of inspection imposed upon one who permits another to come upon his land for his business purpose. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 392 cmt. a.

      . Though ownership of the chattel was present in this case, section 392 states ownership is immaterial. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 392 cmt. c. "It is enough that [the supplier] has had possession or control of it for the purpose of using it in connection with his business, and that he has supplied it for such purpose.” Id.

      .Restatement (Second) of Torts sections 388 through 390 apply to determine the liability of those who, for any purpose, supply chattel for others' use. Section 388 provides a supplier is liable if he "knows or has reason to know that the chattel is or is likely to be dangerous” and fails to so warn. Unlike section 392, section 388 does not impose upon the supplier a duty of inspection.

      . Carroll argues that if an employer/employee relationship existed, Roland's duty of care would have been to provide a reasonably safe workplace and equipment. Such a finding, Carroll asserts, would result in the application of pure comparative fault. See Ries v. Steffensmeier, 570 N.W.2d 111, 113 (Iowa 1997). Though there may be other consequences of such a finding, Carroll does not urge them on appeal.

      . Carroll asks us to consider a number of factors in determining whether he was Roland's employee. Among those factors are the right to control the mode of doing the work, the right of supervision, the power to terminate the relationship, who furnishes the materials and appliances to be used, and the method of payment. See, e.g., Gaffney v. Dep't of Employment Servs., 540 N.W.2d 430, 433, (Iowa 1995) (differentiating employee from independent contractor); Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 572 N.W.2d 537, 542-43 (Iowa 1997) (in determining whether person is employee or independent contractor, primary focus is extent of control). These considerations have primary force in an analysis to determine whether a person is an employee versus an independent contractor. They have not been articulated as factors to consider in deciding whether an employer/employee relationship exists. If these factors are to be considered at all, it is merely as an aid in determining the nature of the relationship. See McCarthy, 572 N.W.2d at 542.


source: Caselaw Access Project

license: Public Domain

text:
    Thomas S. COLVIN and Sonya M. Colvin, Appellees, v. STORY COUNTY BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellant.
    No. 01-1376.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    Nov. 14, 2002.

      James E. Brick of Brick, Gentry, Bowers, Swartz, Stoltze, Schuling &, Levis, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
    Mark E. Truesdell and Eldon L. McAfee of Beving, Swanson & Forrest, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees.
   STREIT, Justice.

Thomas and Sonya Colvin own land that was reclassified from agricultural to residential in 1999. The district court affirmed the Story County Assessor’s reclassification. While the appeal was pending in our court, Colvins brought suit challenging their 2000 tax assessment. Upon receiving a favorable ruling restoring their agricultural classification, Colvins dismissed the 1999 appeal. The Board of Review now appeals the judgment of the 2000 tax assessment challenge. Colvins did not present any evidence to show the character or use of their property changed between the 1999 and 2000 assessments. We reverse the district court’s determination that Colvins’ property should be classified as agricultural.

I. Background and Facts

Thomas and Sonya Colvin own property that was classified as agricultural until 1999 when the Story County Assessor reclassified the property as residential. Col-vins unsuccessfully protested the 1999 tax year change in classification to the Story County Board of Review and in district court. While the ease was on appeal to our court, Colvins protested the 2000 tax assessment. This tax year assessment reflected increased valuation for their residential property. The district court agreed with Colvins that the property was agricultural and reversed the Board’s decision. Colvins then dismissed their pending appeal of the 1999 tax assessment.

The Board appeals. It argues the district court ruling upholding the 1999 residential classification — now unappealed— precludes the Colvins from relitigating the same issue for their 2000 tax assessment. Colvins argue they are not precluded from relitigating the classification of their property.

II. Scope of Review

We review appeals from the Board of Review’s decision de novo. Cott v. Bd. of Review, 442 N.W.2d 78, 80 (Iowa 1989).

III. The Merits

The Board argues that the doctrine of res judicata prevents the Colvins from challenging their 2000 tax assessment. Colvins argue because they did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the 1999 tax assessment challenge, their current challenge is not precluded. In the Colvins’ 2000 challenge, the district court found issue preclusion was inapplicable. The court reversed the Board’s classification of Colvins’ property as residential. We first must determine whether each tax year presents a new cause of action for an owner or taxpayer of property who is dissatisfied with an assessment.

A. Applicable Legal Standard

The parties’ identification of issue preclusion as the applicable legal doctrine for this ease is misplaced. The doctrine of res judicata embraces the concepts of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Bennett v. MC No. 619, Inc., 586 N.W.2d 512, 516 (Iowa 1998). Under claim preclusion, a final judgment is conclusive in subsequent actions on the parties or their privies as to any claim or cause of action that was litigated or could have been litigated in the first action. Arnevik v. Univ. of Minnesota Bd. of Regents, 642 N.W.2d 315, 319 (Iowa 2002) (citing Bennett, 586 N.W.2d at 516); Penn v. Iowa State Bd. of Regents, 577 N.W.2d 393, 398 (Iowa 1998). For this doctrine to apply, the same cause of action must be involved in the prior and subsequent lawsuits. State v. Delaney’s, Inc., 668 So.2d 768, 771 (Ala.Civ.App.1995). Under the doctrine of issue preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel, parties and their privies may not continue to reliti-gate issues previously decided in litigation. Van Oort Constr. Co. v. Nuckoll's Concrete Serv., Inc., 599 N.W.2d 684, 689 (Iowa 1999) (citation omitted).

Claim preclusion does not apply here because the same cause of action is not involved in both lawsuits. The taxes of separate years do not grow out of the same transaction. See Keokuk & W. R.R. v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 301, 314, 14 S.Ct. 592, 597, 38 L.Ed. 450, 456 (1894) (“A suit for taxes for one year is no bar to a suit for taxes for another year. The two suits are for distinct and separate causes of action.”); Delaney’s, Inc., 668 So.2d at 772 (quoting Comm’r of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 598-601, 68 S.Ct. 715, 719-21, 92 L.Ed. 898, 906-07 (1948)) (“Each [tax] year is the origin of a new liability and of a separate cause of action.”); City of Davenport v. The C., R.I. & P.R.R., 38 Iowa 633, 639-40 (1874); County of Douglas v. Neb. Tax Equalization & Review Comm’n, 262 Neb. 578, 635 N.W.2d 413, 425 (2001) (judgment that property is tax exempt in any one year is not res judicata on question of whether it is tax exempt in subsequent years); Liberty Healthcare Mgmt. Group Inc. v. Fahey, 257 A.D.2d 964, 684 N.Y.S.2d 638, 639 (N.Y.App.Div.1998) (because each assessment is a separate proceeding, a “judgment fixing the tax value of property for taxation in one year, although evidence of its assessed value for a succeeding year, does not enjoy res judicata effect”). We have said before,

previous decrees have no preclusive effect on subsequent tax assessments.... [A] judicial decision on one year’s tax is not res judicata for subsequent years because each tax year is an individual assessment which does not grow out of the same transaction.

Cott, 442 N.W.2d at 81. That is, a tax liability judgment for a previous year is not conclusive with respect to a subsequent tax year under the doctrine of claim preclusion.

Issue preclusion likewise is not applicable to the case before us. When the doctrine of issue preclusion applies, parties may not relitigate issues already litigated and decided. This is because where a particular issue of fact is litigated and decided, the judgment estops both parties from later relitigating the same fact. City of Davenport, 38 Iowa at 640. The entire premise of issue preclusion is that once an issue has been resolved, there is no further fact-finding function to be performed. 50 C.J.S. Judgment § 779, at 336 (1997). Issue preclusion is applied regardless of whether facts have changed since the former, final judgment.

The applicable legal standard for Col-vins’ tax assessment challenge is a rebutta-ble presumption that the use of the property has remained the same since the time the assessor reclassified the property in 1999. See Cott, 442 N.W.2d at 81. The Story County Assessor assessed Colvins’ property in 1999. Colvins initially challenged this assessment. One year later, their property was reassessed at $34,300 higher than it was in 1999. Because of the reassessment for a new tax year, Colvins had a right to challenge the decision. Iowa Code section 441.37(1) explicitly grants to a property owner the chance to protest a property tax assessment each tax year. Iowa Code § 441.37(1) (2001). A dissatisfied property owner or taxpayer may file a protest with the board of review. Id. We now turn to whether Colvins have presented evidence on appeal to rebut the presumption of continuity of the condition and use of their land.

B. Presumption of Continuity of Use or Condition

In 1999, the county assessor reclassified the Colvin property as residential. Finding the highest and best use of the property is residential, the district court affirmed the Board’s residential classification. Though Colvins initially pursued an appeal of the district court’s findings, they dismissed the appeal after receiving a favorable ruling on their 2000 tax assessment challenge. While each new tax year presents a new and separate cause of action, Colvins must overcome the presumption of continuity of use. In the absence of a proven change in the use of their property between 1999 and 2000, we presume the use has remained the same since the 1999 unappealed residential classification was made. See, e.g., Cott, 442 N.W.2d at 82 (“if [county assessor] disagreed with the court’s decision, he should have appealed, rather than obstinately asserting his right to reclassify the property”). “[A] classification in one year is competent and persuasive evidence of the property classification in a subsequent year.” Id. at 81.

Contrary to Colvins’ suggestion and the trial court’s ruling, this presumption is not one of correctness of the original 1999 reclassification. Rather the presumption is an evidentiary one.

When it is admitted that the use of the real property is the same as it was in the prior years when the court adjudicated its classification, there is a strong presumption that no change has occurred. The court should not be obligated to reexamine the same facts again and again. A condition once shown may be presumed to continue until the contrary is shown.

Id. We presume the use of Colvins’ property has not changed since the reclassification. To succeed on appeal, Colvins must rebut this presumption by proving the use of their property has changed since 1999 and, as such, the property should now be classified as agricultural. See id.

When the assessor reclassified Colvins’ property as residential, he considered a number of factors regarding the character and use of the property. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 701-71.1(1) (The classification of real estate shall be based on the “best judgment of the assessor” and he or she should consider the use of the property). Agricultural real estate is land that is “in good faith primarily used for agricultural purposes.” Id. r. 701-71.1(3). The county assessor is guided by other factors in determining whether a taxpayer is using the property agriculturally in good faith. See, e.g., Bystrom v. Union Land Invs., Inc., 477 So.2d 585, 589 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1985) (quoting Straughn v. Tuck, 354 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla.1977)) (“ ‘[U]se’ is still the guidepost in classifying land, although other specifically enumerated factors related to use may also be considered.”). In addition to actual use of the property, “good faith” may also include the following: (1) is the parcel set off and awaiting development; (2) what permitted uses does current zoning allow; (3) if the parcel is being offered for sale, or if it were, would it be viewed by the marketplace as other than agricultural; (4) how does the land conform to other surrounding properties; (5) what is the actual amount of income produced and from what sources; and (6) what is the highest and best use of the property.

In the 1999 assessment of Colvins’ property, the following was shown. Colvins purchased their home on five acres of real property in 1982. They fanned all tillable portions of this land. In 1987, Colvins purchased two more farmable acres of land. They built a farm shed on the property. Since 1983, Colvins raised crops on the acreage. Colvins raised livestock on the property in 1999 and 2000. The county assessor reclassified Colvins’ property as residential in 1999. The district court affirmed this finding the highest and best use of Colvins’ property is residential.

The only change in Colvins’ land that occurred between 1999 and 2000 is the value of the land increased. However, Colvins do not challenge the valuation of the property. Evidence that the valuation changed during this time does not show use of the land has changed warranting a new classification.

Colvins admit the use and condition of their property has not changed since the 1999 reclassification. The facts show the use and condition of their property remained substantially static. Because Col-vins presented no evidence to show the character or use of the land changed in 2000, the district court erred in finding the Board wrongfully classified Colvins’ property as residential. There is no injustice in preventing the Colvins from relitigating the reclassification of their property because they had the opportunity to do so in 1999. If Colvins wanted to challenge the residential reclassification they should have pursued the appeal of the 1999 tax assessment. Having not done so, it is too late now to make this challenge absent proof that the use or condition of the land has changed. Because Colvins failed to present evidence to rebut the presumption that the use of the land has remained the same since the 1999 reclassification, we find the district court should have affirmed the Board’s residential reclassification.

IV. Conclusion

Because each tax year stands as a separate cause of action, claim preclusion does not work to bar Colvins’ appeal. To be successful, Colvins must prove the use of their property has changed to rebut the presumption of continuity and warrant a different property classification. The necessary showing is absent in this case. Because there is no evidence to show the use changed between the 1999 and 2000 tax assessments, the district court erred in reversing the Board’s residential classification of Colvins’ property.

REVERSED.

      . Colvins argue because they did not have counsel to represent them in the first proceeding, they did not have an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the issue of classification. This contention is without merit. We do not apply different standards for represented litigants than we do for those who choose to proceed pro se. See Metro. Jacobson Dev.

        Venture v. Bd. of Review, 476 N.W.2d 726, 729 (Iowa Ct.App.1991).

      . This situation is similar to when a party requests modification of a dissolution decree. The terms of a dissolution decree are subject to modification only where a party can show a substantial change in circumstances occurred after the court entered the dissolution decree. In re Marriage of Maher, 596 N.W.2d 561, 564-65 (Iowa 1999). The party pursuing modification must also show the changed circumstances were not within the court's contemplation at the time the decree was entered. Id.

      . Colvins challenge the county assessor’s use of these factors in 1999 asserting they are not within the contemplation of Iowa Administrative rule 701-71.1(1). We do not reach this issue because Colvins did not appeal the 1999 assessment to our court.

      . The assessor came to this conclusion after considering the Story County Assessor’s guidelines. The appraiser for the Story County Assessor's office stated that the factor given the most weight is the income potential of the real estate. The record shows the rent of the tillable portions of the property is worth approximately $150 per acre per year. On the other hand, the portion of the property upon which the house is located is worth approximately $450 per month in rent. The appraiser also stated how the marketplace would treat the real estate is important. The county assessor stated the Colvin property, like the majority of the surrounding lots, is worth a "tremendous amount of money” for the opportunity to build a house upon the property. In determining whether a property owner is in good faith trying to make a profit or whether the use is merely a hobby, the appraiser considered whether the type of enterprise carried out on the property is intense. Finally, the appraiser considered the highest and best use of the property in classifying the real estate. The county assessor testified there is a trend in accelerating property values for rural residential property. He stated the rural residential property is worth a "tremendous amount of money” because the bulk of people want to live in the rural areas.


author: CADY, Justice.

text:
    STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Jay Thomas WIDMER-BAUM, Appellant.
    No. 01-1527.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    Nov. 14, 2002.

      Philip B. Mears of Mears Law Office, Iowa City, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas S. Tauber, Assistant Attorney General, J. Patrick White, County Attorney, and David Tiffany, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
   CADY, Justice.

In this appeal we must decide if the district court applied the correct time period within which a prisoner must be brought to trial under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. We conclude the district court applied the incorrect time period and the State failed to bring the prisoner to trial in a timely manner under the Interstate Agreement. We vacate the judgment and sentence, reverse the district court ruling on the motion to dismiss, and remand the case for dismissal of the underlying trial information.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On July 15, 1998, a criminal complaint was filed in Johnson County district court against Jay Widmer-Baum. The complaint accused Widmer-Baum of second-degree theft, based on a bad check scheme he allegedly engaged in during a five-month period the previous year. At the time the complaint was filed, Widmer-Baum was incarcerated in the State of Wisconsin. He was serving a sentence for a theft conviction in that state. Widmer-Baum was incarcerated at the Fox Lake Correctional Institution. The sentence was to expire on January 15, 2003.

On January 24, 2000, the Johnson County Attorney sent a notice of detainer and request for temporary custody of Widmer-Baum to the warden of the Fox Lake Correctional Institution. The detainer enumerated the Iowa charges against Wid-mer-Baum. The request for temporary custody indicated Widmer-Baum would be brought to trial in Iowa within the time specified in article IV of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD). The request was designated as form V, and specifically requested temporary custody of Widmer-Baum under article IV of the agreement. The form was signed by an assistant county attorney, and certified and recorded by the district court. The sheriff of Johnson County transmitted the form to the Fox Lake Correctional Institution with a cover letter. The cover letter indicated the form was enclosed, but stated:

Should the defendant decline to return to Iowa under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, we will commence extradition proceedings upon his discharge from your custody.

Widmer-Baum was notified of the de-tainer. On February 7, 2000, he executed a response to the request for temporary custody (form I), declining to return to Iowa voluntarily. The form indicated Wid-mer-Baum was not requesting final disposition of the charges.

No further action occurred in the matter until almost one year later. On February 2, 2001, Widmer-Baum executed an “Offender’s Notice of Place of Imprisonment and Request for Disposition of Indictments, Informations, or Complaints” (form II). The warden of the Fox Lake Correctional Institution also executed an “Offer to Deliver Temporary Custody” (form IV) of Widmer-Baum to Iowa officials for trial on the charges “described in the attached offender’s request.” The warden also executed a “Certificate of Offender Status” (form III) indicating Widmer-Baum was scheduled to be released from his sentence in six months, twenty-one days. These documents were received by the Johnson County Attorney on February 8, 2001.

On April 23, 2001, the Johnson County Attorney sent the warden of the Fox Lake Correctional Institution a “Prosecutor’s Acceptance of Temporary Custody Offered in Connection With a Prisoner’s Request for Disposition of a Detainer” (form VII). The acceptance indicated the Johnson County prosecutor would bring Widmer-Baum to trial within the time specified in article III of the IAD. Iowa authorities then took physical custody of Widmer-Baum from Wisconsin authorities and transported him to Johnson County on May 24, 2001.

On June 12, 2001, the Johnson County Attorney filed a trial information against Widmer-Baum charging him with second-degree theft as a habitual offender. The district court set the trial for September 4, 2001.

On August 8, 2001, Widmer-Baum filed a motion to dismiss the trial information. He alleged the State failed to bring him to trial within the 180-day speedy trial provisions of the IAD. The district court denied the motion.

Widmer-Baum was found guilty of the charge in the trial information on August 30, 2001, following a bench trial. He was subsequently sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration not to exceed fifteen years.

Widmer-Baum appeals. He claims the time limitations for a trial under the IAD were triggered when the Johnson County Attorney received his request for disposition of the detainer on February 8, 2001, and that the district court erred by failing to dismiss the trial information against him after the State failed to bring him to trial before August 7, 2001!

II. Standard of Review.

Our review is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R.App. P. 6.4; State v. Webb, 570 N.W.2d 913, 914 (Iowa 1997).

III. Background.

The IAD is found in chapter 821 of the Iowa Code. Iowa Code §§ 821.1-.8 (2001). It is an agreement between forty-eight states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government that establishes uniform procedures for the orderly and cooperative disposition of criminal charges against a prisoner incarcerated in one jurisdiction and wanted by another jurisdiction that has lodged a detainer against the prisoner to respond to untried criminal charges in that jurisdiction. Id. § 821.1, art. I. The IAD is implicated when a state or jurisdiction wants custody of a prisoner from another jurisdiction and files a de-tainer or written notice informing the jurisdiction in which the prisoner is serving a sentence to hold the prisoner so the second jurisdiction may try the prisoner for a different crime in its jurisdiction. United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 359, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 1846, 56 L.Ed.2d 329, 346 (1978); State v. Wood, 241 N.W.2d 8, 12-13 (Iowa 1976).

A jurisdiction that lodges a de-tainer against a prisoner is generally not required to act on it. United States v. Dixon, 592 F.2d 329, 332 n. 3 (6th Cir.1979). Historically, this has led to abuses of the detainer process, and the IAD is an attempt to eliminate these abuses. See United States v. Ford, 550 F.2d 732, 737-40 (2d Cir.1977). The purpose of the IAD is to expedite the “delivery of the prisoner to the receiving state” and to expeditiously dispose of the untried charges “prior to the termination of [the] sentence in the sending state.” Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146, 148, 121 S.Ct. 2079, 2082, 150 L.Ed.2d 188, 192 (2001); Iowa Code § 821.1, art. I. This prompt action is needed to minimize the interruption and adverse impact of a foreign prosecution on the rehabilitation programs provided to the prisoner by the confining jurisdiction. Bozeman, 533 U.S. at 148, 121 S.Ct. at 2082, 150 L.Ed.2d at 192; State v. Taylor, 63 Conn.App. 386, 776 A.2d 1154, 1173 (2001); Iowa Code § 821.1, art. I. These programs help prisoners successfully integrate into society following release, and interruptions caused by the prosecution of a case may adversely impact the effectiveness of such programs. The agreement attempts to discourage states and jurisdictions from lodging detainers against prisoners and then waiting until the release date before pursuing the underlying charge. Wood, 241 N.W.2d at 12.

The IAD is only invoked once a detainer is lodged. Mauro, 436 U.S. at 343-44, 98 S.Ct. at 1839, 56 L.Ed.2d at 336-37. The detainer, however, does not require the custodial member to produce the prisoner. Instead, it merely serves to notify the custodial institution that the prisoner is wanted in another jurisdiction, and activates certain requirements under the agreement. Id. Pursuant to the agreement, the authorities of the state or jurisdiction with custody of the prisoner are required to inform the prisoner of the source and contents of the detainer and the prisoner’s right to request a final disposition of the underlying charge. Iowa Code § 821.1, art. III(c). At the same time, the agreement permits the requesting state to initiate the process for the prisoner to be transferred to the receiving state to stand trial. Id. § 821.1, art. IV. Thus, once a detainer is filed, either the prisoner or the receiving state can activate the procedures under the agreement to promptly dispose of the charge. These procedures are the central provisions of the IAD, and the timing of the speedy trial requirements under the provisions give rise to the issue presented on appeal.

If the prisoner institutes the process by requesting disposition of the charges pursuant to article III of the agreement, then the prisoner must be brought to trial within 180 days after written notice of the request has been delivered to the prosecutor in the appropriate court of the receiving state. Id. § 821.1, art. 111(a); Fex v. Michigan, 507 U.S. 43, 52, 113 S.Ct. 1085, 1091, 122 L.Ed.2d 406, 416 (1993). The request by a prisoner under article III is considered to be a waiver of the right to contest extradition, as well as a consent to appear in any court necessary to effectuate the purposes of the IAD. Iowa Code § 821.1, art. 111(e); Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 445, 101 S.Ct. 703, 710, 66 L.Ed.2d 641, 652 (1981). Thus, article III is a voluntary procedure under the agreement where the prisoner gives up the right to contest extradition in return for an assurance that the charge will be resolved within a period of 180 days. See Parker v. United States, 590 A.2d 504, 510 (D.C.App.1991) (article III requires the prisoner to waive extradition rights).

Article IV of the agreement sets forth the procedures for the prosecutor of the requesting state to initiate the transfer of the prisoner. Under article IV, the prisoner may be returned pursuant to a request for temporary custody issued by the state where the charges are pending. Iowa Code § 821.1, art. IV(a). If the return is accomplished by this method, then the prisoner must be tried within 120 days of arrival in the receiving state. Id. § 821.1, art. IV(c). Thus, unlike the trigger for the 180-day period under article III, the 120-day period under article IV does not begin to run until the prisoner actually arrives in the receiving state. Yet, the agreement does not provide any specific time within which the receiving state must complete the transfer after requesting temporary custody. See Laster v. State, 313 Md. 548, 546 A.2d 472, 478-79 (1988) (although the IAD “contemplates the timely transportation of the prisoner into the receiving state” after an article IV request by a prosecutor, the receiving state’s “statutory obligation is [only] to bring the prisoner to trial within 120 days” after the prisoner has arrived in the state). Moreover, there is no specific requirement that the receiving state even effectuate the transfer by requesting temporary custody after a detainer is filed. Palmer v. Williams, 120 N.M. 63, 897 P.2d 1111, 1115 (1995) (“no affirmative duty on a state under the IAD” to act on a detainer).

If the prisoner is not brought to trial within either the applicable time period prescribed in article III or article IV, the court where the charges are pending “shall enter an order dismissing [the charge] with prejudice,” and the detainer shall have no force or effect. Iowa Code § 821.1, art. V(c). Additionally, the charges must also be dismissed “[i]f the appropriate authority shall refuse or fail to accept temporary custody” of the prisoner. Id.

To help implement the agreement, there are eight optional forms available for use by the authorities of the sending and receiving jurisdictions. These forms were used by Iowa and Wisconsin officials in this case. A review of the forms reveals how the process works in practice.

Under article III, once a detainer is lodged, the warden of the prison uses form I (“Notice of Untried Indictment, Information or Complaint and of Right to Request Disposition”) to inform the prisoner of the detainer and the right to request disposition. Id. § 821.1, art. III(c). If the prisoner elects to request disposition, then the prisoner signs form I and form II (“Inmate’s Notice of Place of Imprisonment and Request for Disposition of Indictments, Informations or Complaints”) and return the forms to the warden. The warden then sends form II, form III (“Certificate of Inmate Status”) and form IV (“Offer to Deliver Temporary Custody”) to the prosecutor and the appropriate court in the receiving state. See id. § 821.1, art. 111(a), art. V(a). Upon receipt of the forms, the prosecutor in the receiving state completes form VII (“Prosecutor’s Acceptance of Temporary Custody Offered in Connection With a Prisoner’s Request for Disposition of a Detainer”) and sends it to the warden. The prosecutor then completes form VI (“Evidence of Agent’s Authority to Act for Receiving State”) and sends it to the state agreement administrator. Form VI shows the date the prisoner will be transported.

Under article IV, once a detainer is lodged and the prosecutor in the member state desires temporary custody of the prisoner, the prosecutor completes form V (“Request for Temporary Custody”) and sends it to the prisoner and the warden. After the thirty-day period for the governor to deny the request, the warden sends form III (“Certificate of Inmate Status”) and form IV (“Offer to Deliver Temporary Custody”) to the prosecutor of the receiving state. See id. § 821.1, art. PV(b), art. V(a). Upon receipt of the forms, the prosecutor completes form VI (“Evidence of Agent’s Authority to Act for Receiving State”) and forwards it to the state agreement administrator. This form shows the date the prisoner will be transported.

IV. Competing Time Limitations.

The State claims the transfer process was accomplished under article IV, while Widmer-Baum claims it was done under article III. In considering competing or overlapping requests under article III and article IV, we apply a rule that “the first party to perfect the compact request, be it the state or the prisoner, is entitled to proceed according to the article of the compact under which that request is made.” Webb, 570 N.W.2d at 915.

In this case, the State made its request for temporary custody under article IV nearly a year prior to the time Widmer-Baum made his request for disposition under article III. Thus, the State was first to perfect. Applying our rule in Webb, the district court found Widmer-Baum was timely tried pursuant to the 120-day time limitation established under article IV of the compact because the period of limitations did not commence until Widmer-Baum arrived in Iowa on May 24, 2001.

It is important to recognize that our rule in Webb does not merely look to the first party to make the request after the detain-er is lodged to determine the proper speedy trial time frame to apply. Under our rule, the first party to perfect the request “is entitled to proceed according to the article of the compact under which that request is made.” Id. at 915. This means the first party to perfect is entitled to complete the process it started. Yet, the rule does not prevent the other party from requesting transfer. Moreover, the rule does not prevent the first perfected party from waiving its right to proceed under its request and elect to proceed under a subsequent request by the other party. Thus, the inquiry to determine the applicable time limit not only considers which party was first to perfect a request, but also considers under which article the parties proceeded following a request. See Last-er, 546 A.2d at 479 (the question is whether “the IAD proceeding ... was pursuant to a prisoner demand for disposition or [the receiving state’s] request for temporary custody”).

In this case, the State may have been the first party to perfect a request under article IV, but the facts reveal the State elected to proceed pursuant to the second request made by the prisoner under article III nearly one year later. Wisconsin authorities did not respond to the State’s request and there was no further action by the State until Widmer-Baum made his request for disposition under article III by completing form II. The warden then sent form II, form III, and form IV to Iowa authorities. At this point, the State did not insist that the transfer proceed under its prior article IV request. Instead, the State responded to the warden by submitting form VII. This form specifically provided that Iowa was accepting the offer created by the prisoner’s request for disposition of the detainer. It also provided that Widmer-Baum would be tried “within the time specified in article 111(a) of the agreement on detainers.” Furthermore, there is no evidence to show any of the procedures under article IV were followed, such as allowing the governor of Wisconsin an opportunity to disapprove of the transfer. Thus, the process followed by the parties to accomplish the transfer mirrored the process set forth in article III, and revealed Iowa elected to proceed under article III instead of article IV. Consequently, the time limits of article III governed the transfer. The State waived any ability to proceed under its prior article IV request by accepting Widmer-Baum’s offer to return under article III, and Widmer-Baum “gained the right to be tried within the 180 day period prescribed in Article III.” Laster, 546 A.2d at 479.

The IAD provides that the indictment “shall” be dismissed if the prisoner is not brought to trial within 180 days of the time the receiving state receives the prisoner’s IAD request, absent good cause for a continuance. Iowa Code § 821.1, art. 111(a), art. V(c). This provision constitutes an express mandate. See Bozeman, 533 U.S. at 153, 121 S.Ct. at 2084-85, 150 L.Ed.2d at 195 (use of word “shall” in the IAD is absolute). It means, absent a continuance or waiver, the charges must be dismissed with prejudice if a prisoner is not brought to trial within the prescribed time period.

The district court erred in applying the 120-day time limit under article IV. Under article III, Widmer-Baum was not tried within 180 days from the time the State received his request for disposition of the charges. Additionally, the State did not request a continuance beyond the 180-day time period, nor was there any evidence of good cause presented before the district court to support a continuance. Consequently, Widmer-Baum was entitled to have the trial information dismissed. This remedy is consistent with the purposes of the compact, and was known to the compact members when they joined the compact.

V. Conclusion.

We conclude the 180-day time period under section 821.1, article III applied to this case, and the district court erred by failing to dismiss the trial information pri- or to trial. We vacate the judgment and sentence, reverse the decision of the district court, and remand the case to the district court to enter an order dismissing the trial information with prejudice.

JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE VACATED, DISTRICT COURT DECISION REVERSED, AND CASE REMANDED.

      . Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands also have joined the agreement. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 567 Pa. 135, 786 A.2d 173, 175 (2001) (citation omitted). Iowa became a signatory in 1965. See 1965 Iowa Acts ch. 445, at 845. Wisconsin is also a member state. See Wis. Stat. §§ 976.05, 976.06 (2001). The two states that are not members of the uniform compact are Louisiana and Mississippi. See 18 U.S.C.A. app. § 1 (West 2000 & Supp.2002). A comprehensive history and background of the IAD can be found in United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 349-52, 98 S.Ct. 1834, 1842, 56 L.Ed.2d 329, 340-41 (1978).

      . The IAD does not define the term "detain-er.” See Mauro, 436 U.S. at 359, 98 S.Ct. at 1846, 56 L.Ed.2d at 346. However, we have defined a detainer as " 'a notification filed with the institution in which a prisoner is serving a sentence, advising that [the prisoner] is wanted to face pending criminal charges in another jurisdiction.’ ” State v. Wood, 241 N.W.2d 8, 12 (Iowa 1976) (citation omitted). This definition was adopted from the federal definition. See Mauro, 436 U.S. at 359, 98 S.Ct. at 1846, 56 L.Ed.2d at 346 (citing House and Senate reports). As a con-gressionally sanctioned interstate compact within the compact clause of article I, section 10, clause 3 of the United States Constitution, the interstate agreement is federal law subject to federal construction. See New York v. Hill,
        528 U.S. 110, 111, 120 S.Ct. 659, 662, 145 L.Ed.2d 560, 565 (2000).

      . The legislative history of the IAD detailed the adverse consequences of outstanding de-tainers:
      [A] prisoner who has had a detainer lodged against him is seriously disadvantaged by such action. He is in custody and therefore in no position to seek witnesses or to preserve his defense. He must often be kept in close custody and is ineligible for desirable work assignments. What is more, when detainers are filed against a prisoner he sometimes loses interest in institutional opportunities because he must serve his sentence without knowing what additional sentences may lie before him, or when, if ever, he will be in a position to employ the education and skills he may be developing.

        State v. Batungbacal, 81 Hawai'i 123, 913 P.2d 49, 52-53 (1996) (quoting S.R. No. 91-1356, at 3 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. (84 Stat.) 4864, 4866).

      . The time period may be extended because the agreement provides that a continuance may be granted for good cause. Iowa Code § 821.1, art. 111(a) (2001).

      . One reason for the different triggering events between the speedy trial provisions of article III and article IV transfers is that article IV is an involuntary procedure while article III is a voluntary procedure. Consequently, the prisoner maintains the safeguards of the extradition process under an article IV transfer. Cuyler, 449 U.S. at 447-48, 101 S.Ct. at 711-12, 66 L.Ed.2d at 653-54. The exercise of the safeguards may consume time before the actual transfer can occur. Additionally, the governor of the sending state may disapprove a request for temporary custody during a period of thirty days after receipt of the request. Iowa Code § 821.1, art. IV(a).

      .The agreement only provides that the receiving state is entitled to have the prisoner "made available” for temporary custody upon presentation of a written request for temporary custody if the request is properly transmitted and a period of thirty days has expired within which the governor of the sending state may disapprove of the request. Iowa Code § 821.1, art. IV(a). In response to the request, the sending state must only then offer to deliver temporary custody of the prisoner to the receiving state. Id. § 821.1, art. V(a). The receiving state then may accept the offer of temporary custody by presenting appropriate documents to accomplish the transfer. Id. % 821.1, art. V(b).

      . The forms are published in The Council of State Government, The Handbook on Interstate Crime Control 100-09 (rev. ed.1966). This handbook also contains instructions for the use of the forms. Id. at 110-14; see also Laster, 546 A.2d at 474 n. 2.

      . Under section 821.7, "the governor is ... authorized to designate an officer or alternate” to serve as the administrator of the agreement. Iowa Code § 821.7.

      .Widmer-Baum did not argue before the district court or raise in his final brief on appeal that the State failed to perfect its article IV request because the cover letter sent with the request indicated the State did not intend to act on the detainer until Widmer-Baum was discharged from his sentence, unless he would return voluntarily. Therefore, we do not address this question.

      . The IAD provides that charges shall be dismissed and the detainer nullified ''[i]f the appropriate authority shall refuse or fail to accept temporary custody” of a prisoner. Iowa Code § 821.1, art. V(c). Widmer-Baum did not argue that the State's inaction in this case during the one-year period following its request for temporary custody constituted a refusal or failure to accept custody. Instead, he argued the State abandoned its request by failing to pursue it, which rendered it a nullity and allowed him to perfect his request first. The State argued in response that the delay was solely attributable to the negligent failure of Wisconsin authorities to respond to its request for temporary custody, and such negligence cannot support abandonment because it was unable to complete the transfer of custody until Wisconsin authorities responded to its request as they were required under the agreement.
      We need not decide if the State abandoned or waived its request, or what obligation the State may have had after Wisconsin authorities failed to respond to its article IV request for custody, because the record clearly shows the parties proceeded under the article III request by Widmer-Baum, not the earlier article IV request by the State. However, we note the record reveals the cover letter sent to the prison warden in Wisconsin along with the article IV request expressly said that if Widmer-Baum did not agree to voluntarily return to Iowa, Iowa would use extradition to bring him to Iowa after he was discharged. Thus, the cover letter contradicted form V and provides an explanation why Wisconsin authorities may not have responded with a form IV offer to deliver custody.


author: NEUMAN, Justice.

text:
    In the Interest of D.D. and V.D., Minor Children, R.D., Father, Appellant.
    No. 01-1573.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    Nov. 14, 2002.

      Tiffany J. Koenig and Christopher Kragnes, Sr., Des Moines, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, Brett Lucas, Assistant Polk County Attorney and Jennifer Navis, Assistant Polk County Attorney, for appellee State.
   NEUMAN, Justice.

This case concerns two siblings who were adjudicated children in need of assistance (CINA) under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(d) (2001). The court of appeals affirmed the adjudication as to one child but not the other. We granted the State’s application for further review. Because the record supports CINA status for both children, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the judgment of the juvenile court.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Roger and Sharon are the adoptive parents of Vicki and Dustin. The children were adopted out of the foster care system when they were six and four years old, respectively. This case arises out of an allegation of sexual misconduct committed by Roger against Vicki when she was ten years old. The abuse came to light when it was reported by Vicki’s eight-year-old neighbor, Heather, who was also involved in the incident.

The girls reported that they were playing in the bathtub when Roger entered the bathroom and got into the bathtub with them. Roger wore swimming trunks; the girls were naked. Roger reportedly encouraged the girls to soap his chest and stomach and then slide down his body. During a subsequent investigation by authorities, Vicki was asked why the girls did not slide all the way down into the water. Vicki replied, “there was a bump in his bathing suit.” Heather related the same sequence of events.

Des Moines Police Department detectives and DHS investigators interviewed all of the family members shortly after the incident was reported. Vicki told the interviewers that this activity had occurred on previous occasions, always when her mother was out of the house. Vicki knew that her mother did not think Roger should be in the bathroom with her.

Dustin, age eight, denied having ever taken a bath with his father. He also stated that he had never had a “bad touch” from anyone.

In response to investigators’ inquiries, Roger initially admitted his involvement in the incident and stated that he had played this “game” before with Vicki. He denied any sexual motivation for his conduct but admitted having a partial erection while in the bathtub with the girls. Characterizing his conduct as a “mistake,” Roger acknowledged his behavior “may have been close to the edge.”

Upon the commencement of CINA proceedings, Roger’s story began to change. He minimized his involvement in the incident and, instead, blamed the girls. At the CINA adjudication hearing he portrayed the event as nothing more than his response to a behavioral problem brought on by Vicki’s attention deficit disorder. He insisted she defiantly refused to get out of the tub and he was forced to retrieve her. Incredibly, he claimed he was unaware that Heather was even in the tub. As for the “bump” in his shorts, he said it must have been car keys.

The juvenile court found the children’s description of events more credible than Roger’s and adjudicated both Vicki and Dustin as children needing assistance as defined by Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(d). The children were placed in the custody of their mother while family-centered services were ordered to address Roger’s “boundary” issues. Roger appealed. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. That court affirmed the CINA adjudication as to Vicki but held the record contained insufficient proof of imminent harm to warrant the same finding as to Dustin. We then granted the State’s application for further review to address its challenge to the court of appeals’ decision.

II.Scope of Review.

We review CINA cases de novo. In re J.R.H., 358 N.W.2d 311, 317 (Iowa 1984); In re D.T., 435 N.W.2d 323, 329 (Iowa 1989). We are not bound by the juvenile court’s factual findings, but give them weight, especially when credibility is at issue. In re D.T., 435 N.W.2d at 329.

III. Issue on Appeal.

The issue is simply whether the record contains clear and convincing proof that Dustin is a child in need of assistance as defined in Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(d). The State contends the record supports the juvenile court’s belief that Dustin is “imminently likely to be sexually abused” by his father. See Iowa Code § 232.2(6)(d). Roger counters that the record contains no evidence that he has sexually abused or is imminently likely to sexually abuse Dustin.

IV. Analysis.

The State bears the burden of proving child in need of assistance allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Iowa Code § 232.96(2). Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that leaves “no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusion drawn from it.” Raim v. Stancel, 339 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Iowa Ct.App.1983); see also In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 492 (Iowa 2000).

Dustin’s CINA adjudication rests on Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(d). That section states:

“Child in need of assistance” means an unmarried child:

d. Who has been, or is imminently likely to be, sexually abused by the child’s parent, guardian, custodian or other member of the household in which the child resides.

Iowa Code § 232.2(6)(d) (emphasis added).

The record clearly reveals that Roger exceeded all bounds of sexual propriety between himself, his daughter and her eight-year-old friend. To suggest that he has trouble with “boundary issues” is a gross understatement. Like the juvenile court, we find Roger’s earlier admissions of impropriety more convincing than his later, revised version of the facts. The girls’ statements, repeated with little variation to several adults, merits more credence. Roger’s attempt to shift the blame for his behavior to the girls reveals a disturbing propensity to minimize plainly improper conduct.

Reports submitted at the CINA hearing support Roger’s claim that he possesses positive parental qualities and enjoys a strong bond with his children. Yet the record fully supports the juvenile court’s finding that both children need to remain under court supervision until Roger addresses and resolves the issues bringing this family before the court. Of great concern is the child protection worker’s characterization of Roger’s behavior as “part of a grooming process” for more serious sexual abuse. In her words, the children “would be at high risk” without intervention by the court.

Dustin was only eight years old when these incidents occurred. He has been diagnosed with ADHD and was in the foster care system before being adopted at the age of four. These factors render Dustin an especially vulnerable target of his father’s inappropriate behavior. The State persuasively argues that, if he is not adjudicated CINA, Dustin will be at an even higher risk of abuse because Roger no longer has access to Vicki and is not living at home with his wife.

Although every CINA adjudication addresses a unique situation, facts in prior eases suggest that perpetrators of sexual abuse often abuse multiple children in the family without regard to the sex of the child. See, e.g., State v. Farnum, 397 N.W.2d 744, 745 (Iowa 1986) (defendant convicted of sexually abusing boy and girl living in home along with neighbor girl). Prior decisions likewise reflect the common sense notion that, ordinarily, all siblings are at risk when one child has been sexually abused. See, e.g., In re E.B.L., 501 N.W.2d 547, 548 (Iowa 1993) (father allegedly sexually abused oldest daughter and all six children adjudicated CINA); In re A.B., 492 N.W.2d 446, 447 (Iowa Ct.App.1992) (court ordered CINA petition filed on all children after allegations of sexual and physical abuse of one child).

The most important consideration in any CINA case is the best interests of the child. In re D.T., 435 N.W.2d at 329. Dustin’s best interests are served by adjudicating him a child in need of assistance. Were the court to afford only Vicki the protection and help of CINA status, Dustin would be left to fend for himself against the alleged abuser, his father. We refuse to leave Dustin without a safety net while Roger deals with the issues surrounding his sexual misconduct. In short, the record leaves no “serious or substantial doubt” that Dustin is in imminent danger of being sexually abused by his father if he is not adjudicated a child in need of assistance. We therefore vacate the contrary decision of the court of appeals and affirm the dispositional order entered by the district court.

DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.


author: LAVORATO, Chief Justice.

text:
    Todd Eric MISSMAN, Appellant, v. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Motor Vehicle Division, Appellee.
    No. 01-1585.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    Nov. 14, 2002.
    Charles H. Levad, Mason City, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, David A. Ferree, Special Assistant Attorney General and John Baty and Kerry Anderson, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
   LAVORATO, Chief Justice.

Todd Eric Missman appeals from the district court’s judicial review ruling affirming the Iowa Department of Transportation’s (IDOT) revocation of Miss-man’s driver’s license. The revocation was pursuant to Iowa Code section 321J.9 (1999) for a chemical test refusal. Miss-man contends there was a lack of substantial evidence to support a finding that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe he — Missman—was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. We disagree and therefore affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On March 10, 2001, Officer David Lehman of the Forest City, Iowa Police Department served Missman with a notice of revocation of his driver’s license after the officer stopped Missman and Missman refused to submit to a chemical test pursuant to Iowa’s implied consent law. See Iowa Code § 321J.9(1). Missman appealed the decision and an administrative law judge (ALJ) held a telephone hearing on the appeal. See Iowa Code § 321J.13. Officer Lehman was subpoenaed to testify but did not appear. Missman was the only witness who testified.

Missman testified as follows. On March 10, 2001, Missman had been to the VIP lounge and the Super Bowl bowling alley in Forest City. His fiancée and a friend’s wife were with him. They arrived at the VIP lounge around 9:00 p.m. and then proceeded to the Super Bowl about 10:00 p.m., where they stayed until 2:00 a.m. The Super Bowl is about a mile and a quarter east of Forest City.

After they left the Super Bowl, Missman proceeded west on Highway 9, a two-lane highway, into Forest City. At some point, Missman noticed a police officer stopped at a stop sign. The officer began following Missman. Missman claimed he swerved one time to avoid a dead animal on the road and that the officer did the same thing.

Approximately twenty-two blocks from the point that the officer began following Missman, the officer turned on his lights. Missman pulled into a parking lot. According to Missman, the officer came up to him and said that “1 was weaving all over the place.” Missman claimed he disputed the officer’s claim and said he had swerved one time to avoid the dead animal and that the officer had done the same thing. The officer then ordered Missman out of his vehicle. At this point, Missman reached behind the driver’s seat, opened a third door on his truck, pulled out his wheelchair and got into it. (Missman is paralyzed from the waist down as a result of a car accident and drives by means of hand controls.)

Missman claimed the officer gave him no field sobriety tests, but instead took him to the sheriffs department and to jail. Miss-man did admit that the officer asked him if he had been drinking and that he told the officer he had had “a few beverages earlier that night.”

At the sheriffs department, a second officer asked Missman to take a breath test but Missman refused to do so. Later, Officer Lehman, the arresting officer, asked Missman to take a breath test. Missman again refused but said he would take a blood test instead.

When asked at the hearing why he refused to take a breath test, Missman claimed he did not trust the test. In addition, he testified that he had four alcoholic beverages between 9:00 and 11:30 on the evening in question. He also testified that he had taken several different prescription medications including a muscle relaxant and Darvocet. Missman ended his testimony by stating he was not intoxicated.

The IDOT offered no evidence and the ALJ took no judicial notice of any documents. Missman through his attorney argued to the ALJ that “the evidence indicates that there was no probable cause for the stop or for invocation of the implied consent, and we’re asking that this suspension be reversed.”

The ALJ upheld the revocation. In doing so, the ALJ relied on, among other things, Officer Lehman’s certified statement in the Request <& Notice (implied consent) form that he had reasonable grounds to believe that Missman was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The ALJ also relied on Missman’s incriminating testimony, such as his concession that he admitted to Officer Lehman that he had consumed alcoholic beverages earlier in the evening.

Missman appealed the ALJ’s decision. He argued that the ALJ failed to consider his testimony and erred in considering the Request <& Notice form because it was not entered into evidence. The reviewing officer rejected Missman’s arguments and upheld the ALJ’s decision.

Missman thereafter filed a petition for judicial review in the district court. The district court rejected Missman’s argument that the ALJ had improperly considered the Request & Notice form even though the form was not formally introduced and received into evidence. The court concluded that Officer Lehman had reasonable grounds to believe that Miss-man was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The court based its conclusion on the incriminating portions of Miss-man’s testimony coupled with the officer’s certified statement that he had reasonable grounds to believe that Missman was operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

JI. Issue.

In his appeal, Missman notes that “[t]he sole issue at the hearing contesting this implied consent revocation was whether the officer had enough information to constitute reasonable grounds to believe that [he — Missman] was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.” Missman contends that the district court incorrectly decided there was enough information, and therefore was in error in upholding the IDOT’s revocation of his driver’s license.

Missman concedes that he had the burden of showing that Officer Lehman did not have reasonable grounds to invoke implied consent. He contends he met that burden for two reasons. First, the IDOT and the district court erred in considering the Request & Notice form in determining whether the officer had reasonable grounds when that document was not introduced and received into evidence. Second, Missman’s own testimony sufficiently established that the police officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe Missman was driving while intoxicated. We need not consider the first issue because even without the Request & Notice form, we think there was sufficient evidence from Missman’s own testimony to establish such grounds.

III. Sufficiency of the Evidence.

A. Applicable statutory provisions. Iowa Code section 321J.2 provides that a person commits the offense of operating while intoxicated if the person operates a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or drug or a combination of both, or while having an alcohol concentration of .10 or more. See Iowa Code § 321J.2(l)(a), (b). Iowa Code section 321J.6 — the implied consent provision — sets forth conditions under which a peace officer may request a specimen of blood, breath or urine for chemical testing to determine alcohol concentration:

A person who operates a motor vehicle in this state under circumstances which give reasonable grounds to believe that the person has been operating a motor vehicle in violation of section 321J.2 ... is deemed to have given consent to the withdrawal of specimens of the person’s blood, breath, or urine and to a chemical test or tests of the specimens for the purpose of determining the alcohol concentration... .The withdrawal of the body substances and the tests or tests shall be administered at the written request of a peace officer having reasonable grounds to believe that the person was operating a motor vehicle in violation of section 321 J.2 ..., and if any of the following conditions exists:
a. A peace officer has lawfully placed the person under arrest for violation of section 321 J.2.

Iowa Code § 321J.6(1) (emphasis added).

Iowa Code section 321J.9(1) provides that if the person refuses to submit to testing,

a test shall not be given, but the [IDOT], upon the receipt of the peace officer’s certification, subject to penalty for perjury, that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person to have been operating a motor vehicle in violation of section 321 J.2 ..., that specified conditions existed for chemical testing pursuant to section 321J.6, and that the person refused to submit to the chemical testing, shall revoke the person’s driver’s license....

Iowa Code § 321J.9(1).

Iowa Code section 321J.13(2) sets forth what may be addressed in the hearing on revocation. In relevant part, this provision provides:

The hearing may be recorded and its scope shall be limited to the issues of whether a peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the person was operating a motor vehicle in violation of section 321J.2 ... and one or more of the following:
a. Whether the person refused to submit to the test or tests.

Iowa Code § 321J.13(2). Here, Missman only challenges whether Officer Lehman had reasonable grounds to believe Miss-man was driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage.

B. Burden of proof, the test for reasonable grounds, and scope of review. In an implied consent revocation proceeding, the driver has the burden to prove why the license should not be revoked. Reed v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 478 N.W.2d 844, 846 (Iowa 1991). The burden is a preponderance of the evidence. Mary v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 382 N.W.2d 128, 132 (Iowa 1986). Missman, then, had the burden to prove Officer Lehman lacked reasonable grounds to believe Missman had been operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

We have held that “[r]easonable grounds exist if the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time action was required would have warranted a reasonable person to believe that an offense had been committed.” Reed, 478 N.W.2d at 846 (emphasis added). Contrary to Missman’s belief, probable cause, which requires more proof, does not apply here. Westendorf v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 400 N.W.2d 553, 556 (Iowa 1987) (holding that district court incorrectly applied probable-cause-to-stop test in determining whether the IDOT had authority to revoke driver’s license).

On appeal, an agency’s factual findings are binding if supported by substantial evidence in the record made before the agency when that record is viewed as a whole. Reed, 478 N.W.2d at 846. “Substantial evidence” is now defined as “the quantity and quality of evidence that would be deemed sufficient by a neutral, detached, and reasonable person, to establish the fact at issue when the consequences resulting from the establishment of that fact are understood to be serious and of great importance.” Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f)(l) (2001) (effective July 1, 1999; see 1998 Iowa Acts ch. 1202 §§ 24, 46).

‘When the record is viewed as a whole” is now defined

to mean that the adequacy of the evidence in the record before the court to support a particular finding of fact must be judged in light of all the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that detracts from that finding as well as all of the relevant evidence in the record cited by any party that supports it, including any determinations of veracity by the presiding officer who personally observed the demeanor of the witnesses and the agency’s explanation of why the relevant evidence in the record supports its material findings of fact.

Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f)(3) (2001) (effective July 1, 1999; see 1998 Iowa Acts ch. 1202, §§ 24,46).

Entirely consistent with these two definitions is this court’s holding that

evidence is not insubstantial merely because it would have supported contrary inferences. Nor is evidence insubstantial because of the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from it. The ultimate question is not whether the evidence supports a different finding but whether the evidence supports the findings actually made.

Reed, 478 N.W.2d at 846 (citations omitted).

In view of the agency’s finding that Officer Lehman had the requisite reasonable grounds, Missman had to establish .a lack of substantial evidence to support such finding. See id. This is a heavy burden and, as we next discuss, one that Missman falls short of meeting.

C. Analysis. Missman’s own testimony provides substantial evidence that Officer Lehman had reasonable grounds to believe that Missman was driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. By this testimony, Missman provided evidence that Officer Lehman believed that he — Missman—“was weaving all over the road.” At least twice in his testimony, Missman confirmed that this was the officer’s contention. True, Missman testified that he was not swerving and that he disputed this with the officer. However, we fail to see how this denial detracts from Missman’s own admission that the officer believed he was. And, in fact, Missman admitted that he had swerved one time, although he maintained that this was to avoid a dead animal in the road.

Missman also testified that when asked if he had been drinking, he told the officer that he had consumed “a few beverages earlier that night.” This admission, when coupled with Missman’s testimony that Officer Lehman believed Missman was swerving, further supports a finding that the officer believed that Missman was driving while under the influence. While Missman believes his testimony supports his claim that he was not intoxicated, it also corroborates the officer’s belief that he was. A reasonable person armed with these same facts could have believed such an offense had been committed. As mentioned, the ultimate question is not whether the evidence supports a different finding, but whether the evidence supports the finding actually made.

Moreover, the reviewing officer questioned Missman’s veracity, noting that Missman’s “direct interest in the outcome of the hearing, and the lack of any [corroborating] evidence weigh against [Miss-man’s] testimony.” See Gregory v. Gregory, 248 Iowa 672, 682, 82 N.W.2d 144, 150 (1957) (“The court is not required to accept as a verity uncontradicted testimony, but might wéll scrutinize closely such testimony as to its credibility, taking into consideration all the circumstances throwing light thereon, such as the interest of the witnesses, remote or otherwise.”). The corroborating evidence mentioned is obviously a reference to Missman’s failure to produce the two witnesses who could have corroborated his account of what happened.

We conclude Missman has failed to establish as a matter of law that there was insubstantial evidence in the record made before the IDOT when that record is viewed as a whole to support the IDOT’s finding that Officer Lehman had reasonable grounds to believe that Missman was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. We therefore affirm the district court ruling upholding the IDOT’s decision.

AFFIRMED.