evidence.” While these definitions were not included in the punitive-damage instruction itself, the definitions are nevertheless read in conjunction with the instruction to determine the sufficiency of the instruction on the issue. See Leaf v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 590 N.W.2d 525, 536 (Iowa 1999) (“Jury instructions are to be read and considered as a whole, not ‘piecemeal or in artificial isolation.’ ”). Clearly, the uniform civil jury instruction here “enlightened the jury as to the punitive damages’ nature and purpose, identified the damages as punishment for civil wrongdoing of the kind involved, and explained that their imposition was not compulsory.” Haslip, 499 U.S. at 19, 111 S.Ct. at 1044, 113 L.Ed.2d at 21; see also State v. Morrison, 368 N.W.2d 173, 175 (Iowa 1985) (<HOLDING>). Walgreen has demonstrated no violation of the
holding that this court is required to assume that the jury followed the limiting instructions given by the district court holding that district court is not required to word jury instructions in any particular way so long as it correctly states the law holding that the district court correctly declined to instruct the jury that the government was required to prove as an element of the offense that the defendant did not intend to establish a life with his wife holding that if jury instructions viewed as a whole fairly state the applicable law to the jury the failure to give particular instructions will not be error holding that the word void is not sufficient