Larry R. Hedlund v. State of Iowa K. Brian London, Commissioner of the Iowa Department of Public Safety, Individually Charis M. Paulson, Director, Division of Criminal Investigation, Individually Gerard F. Meyers, Assistant Director, Division of Criminal Investigation, Individually And Terry E. Branstad, Individually, 2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 22

Larry Hedlund, a former Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation agent, was placed on leave and later terminated after reporting a speeding SUV carrying the Governor and Lieutenant Governor and sending related emails.
Hedlund sued in Polk County district court for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and under Iowa Code §70A.28(2), naming state officials in their individual capacities.
Hedlund also pursued administrative appeals under Iowa Code §80.15 (EAB) and §70A.28(6) (PERB); he later dismissed the EAB appeal and retired.
The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss Hedlund’s common-law wrongful-discharge claim, concluding no clearly defined public-policy exception protected Hedlund and noting statutory remedies under §80.15.
Hedlund filed a Rule 1.904(2) motion to amend the court’s ruling (arguing largely legal authority and out-of-state cases rather than new facts); the district court denied the motion.
Hedlund filed an application for interlocutory appeal more than 30 days after the dismissal order but within 30 days of the denial of his Rule 1.904(2) motion; the Iowa Supreme Court dismissed the interlocutory appeal as untimely because the Rule 1.904(2) motion was improper and did not toll the appeal period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Rule 1.904(2) motion tolled the 30-day interlocutory-appeal period after dismissal for failure to state a claim	Hedlund argued his Rule 1.904(2) motion extended the appeal deadline because it sought amendment of findings/conclusions	State argued Rule 1.904(2) does not apply to purely legal rulings on motions to dismiss and an improper motion does not toll the appeal period	Court held Rule 1.904(2) did not apply to the Rule 1.421(1)(f) dismissal; Hedlund’s motion was improper and did not toll the appeal period, so the interlocutory appeal was untimely and dismissed
Whether Hedlund’s Rule 1.904(2) motion raised new factual issues or preserved error to justify tolling	Hedlund claimed he later-cited statutory language, administrative rulings (EAB/PERB), and out-of-state authority constituted new facts/grounds to amend and preserve error	State: the filings were legal reargument and citations that could have been presented earlier; no new facts or factual misconceptions were shown	Court held Hedlund’s motion merely rehashed legal arguments and out-of-state authority, offered no new facts or correction of factual error, and thus was not a proper Rule 1.904(2) motion

Baur v. Baur Farms, Inc., 832 N.W.2d 663 (Iowa 2013) (only a proper Rule 1.904(2) motion tolls appeal time)
In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2005) (untimely or improper Rule 1.904(2) motion cannot extend appeal period)
Explore Information Servs. v. Iowa Ct. Info. Sys., 636 N.W.2d 50 (Iowa 2001) (Rule 1.904(2) is restricted to nonjury factual rulings; not available to reargue legal issues)
Bellach v. IMT Ins. Co., 573 N.W.2d 903 (Iowa 1998) (posttrial motion that merely rehashes legal issues will not toll appeal time)
Beck v. Fleener, 376 N.W.2d 594 (Iowa 1985) (jurisdiction depends on whether the motion fits Rule 1.904(2))
Kunau v. Miller, 328 N.W.2d 529 (Iowa 1983) (Rule 1.904(2) not available after dismissal for failure to state a claim)
Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (Rule 1.904(2) not for challenging rulings that were purely legal)
Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa 2012) (a Rule 1.904(2) motion raising a purely legal issue does not extend appeal time)
Sierra Club Iowa Chapter v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 832 N.W.2d 636 (Iowa 2013) (distinguishing proper Rule 1.904(2) use to preserve error where district court’s ruling was incomplete)