Jennifer Miller v. National Property Management Corporation and Schooler Enterprises, L.P., D/B/A Scotchview Manor Apartments, 16-0972

Jennifer Miller sued her apartment owner/manager for negligence and breach of duty to maintain habitable premises.
The district court granted a preliminary motion in limine barring references to marijuana use in opening/voir dire, but left the door open for drug-related evidence if experts justified it at trial.
During trial defendants’ counsel cross-examined Miller’s physician about the health effects of meth and marijuana; Miller made no contemporaneous objections.
The court excused the jury, stated the prior ruling had not been violated, then expanded the in limine restriction to bar references to illegal drugs absent prior foundation.
The jury found defendants at fault but apportioned 80% fault to Miller for not moving out, awarding her no damages; Miller appealed arguing the in limine violation warranted relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether error from the motion in limine was preserved for appeal	Miller contends the original in limine ruling barred drug evidence "beyond question," so no contemporaneous objection was required	Defendants argue Miller failed to object with requisite specificity at trial and the in limine did not foreclose all inquiry	Court held error was not preserved because the in limine was preliminary and permitted future admission upon foundation; a timely objection at trial was required

State v. Alberts, 722 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2006) (motion in limine is waived absent timely trial objection unless the ruling conclusively bars the evidence)
State v. Miller, 229 N.W.2d 762 (Iowa 1975) (same principle regarding finality of in limine rulings)
Johnson v. Interstate Power Co., 481 N.W.2d 310 (Iowa 1992) (requiring objection when in limine leaves open an avenue of inquiry)
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Schulte, 843 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 2014) (appellate review ordinarily requires issues be raised and decided in district court)

Affirmed.