With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". question for the district court, not the jury, to decide. Humphries v. Methodist Episcopal Church, 566 N.W.2d 869, 871 (Iowa 1997). Our task is to determine whether the district court was correct in its ruling. B. Analysis. Iowa Code chapter 364 does not define sidewalk. Iowa Code section 321.1(72) defines sidewalk as “that portion of a street between the curb lines, or the lateral lines of a roadway, and the adjacent property lines intended for the use of pedestrians.” This definition, however, is of little help because its application is limited to chapter 321. See Iowa Code § 321.1 (“The following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall, for the purposes of this chapter, have the meanings respectively ascribed to them.” (Emphasis added.)); Humphries, 566 N.W.2d at 871 (<HOLDING>). We think two early Iowa cases control our

A: holding denial of motion to convert from chapter 11 to chapter 7 is interlocutory
B: holding that definition in iowa code chapter 321 1995 was expressly confined to that chapter and did not apply to iowa code section 36412 1995
C: holding the 1995 amendment to section 5601c removed all rights to appeal from a section 5402 ruling
D: holding tort action accruing after original chapter 7 petition not part of estate when case converted to chapter 13 and then back to chapter 7
B.