637 (Iowa 2006). The moving party has the burden of showing the nonexistence of a material fact. Pillsbury Co. v. Wells Dairy, Inc., 752 N.W.2d 430, 434 (Iowa 2008). The non-moving party should be afforded every legitimate inference that can be reasonably deduced from the evidence, and if reasonable minds can differ on how the issue should be resolved, a fact question is generated. Id. Our review “is limited to whether a genuine issue of material fact exists and whether the district court correctly applied the law.” Id. IV. Analysi cifically directed one of the parties to prepare a final decree entering a judgment on its ruling. Had Cynthia appealed from the February 1 ruling, we would not have had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. See McCreary, 276 N.W.2d at 400 (<HOLDING>). Cynthia filed her notice of appeal within
holding that a ruling of the trial court to which no error has been assigned becomes the law of the case and is not subject to review by the court of appeals holding the supreme court was without jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the courts finding of facts conclusions of law and ruling until the court entered the decree that was contemplated by the finding of facts conclusions of law and ruling holding that even under an abuse of discretion standard the trial court must    make sufficient find ings of fact and conclusions of law to allow the reviewing court to determine whether a judgment and the legal conclusions that underlie it represent a correct application of the law holding that an unappealed ruling is the law of the case holding that a court is not required to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably be drawn from the facts alleged