underlying the incident; both cases involved falls from public trails. However, under Goodman and the cases following it, the circumstances underlying the public entity’s decision, and not the facts surrounding the injury itself, is the key to immunity. We also reject the plaintiffs argument that Shelton must be distinguished on the basis of different language in the Municipal Tort Claims Act as compared to the state tort claims act considered in Shelton. We reject this argument; for our purposes the statutes are effectively identical. IV. Application of the Two-Part Test. We begin with the observation that the city has the burden to establish its immunity. Doe v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 652 N.W.2d 439, 446 (Iowa 2002); Hawkeye Bank v. State, 515 N.W.2d 348, 351 (Iowa 1994) (<HOLDING>). Also, the mere exercise of judgment is not
holding that it is not holding that issue exhaustion is not jurisdictional and thus waived if not raised by the government holding that standing is a jurisdictional issue that can be raised for the first time on appeal holding discretionaryfunction argument is defense to be raised by the defendant it is not jurisdictional holding that argument raised at oral argument that was not included in brief is waived