justiciability doctrine in Nebraska

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] Because mootness is a justiciability doctrine that operates to prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction, we have reviewed mootness determinations under the same standard of review as other jurisdictional questions.3 A jurisdictional question that does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law, which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the lower court’s decision.4 3 See Al-Ameen v. Frakes, 293 Neb. 248 , 876 N.W.2d 635 (2016). 4 Id. - 653 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R e

2019STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] Because mootness is a justiciability doctrine that operates to prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction, we have reviewed mootness determinations under the same standard of review as other jurisdictional questions.3 A jurisdictional question that does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law, which requires the appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the lower court’s decision.4 3 See Al-Ameen v. Frakes, 293 Neb. 248 , 876 N.W.2d 635 (2016). 4 Id. - 653 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R e

2020Nesbitt v. Frakes, 300 Neb. 1 , 911 N.W.2d 598 (2018).

2020Nesbitt v. Frakes, 300 Neb. 1 , 911 N.W.2d 598 (2018).

2024Servs. of New York, 297 Neb. 246 , 898 N.W.2d 366 (2017); Al-Ameen v. Frakes, 293 Neb. 248 , 876 N.W.2d 635 (2016). 15 See, e.g., Applied Underwriters v. S.E.B.

2024Servs. of New York, 297 Neb. 246 , 898 N.W.2d 366 (2017); Al-Ameen v. Frakes, 293 Neb. 248 , 876 N.W.2d 635 (2016). 15 See, e.g., Applied Underwriters v. S.E.B.

2020Peterson v. Ebke, 303 Neb. 637 , 930 N.W.2d 551 (2019) (justiciability). 2 See State v. Said, supra note 1 . 3 See State ex rel.

2020Peterson v. Ebke, 303 Neb. 637 , 930 N.W.2d 551 (2019) (justiciability). 2 See State v. Said, supra note 1 . 3 See State ex rel.

2020Id. [21-23] Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine that courts consider in determining whether they may properly decide a controversy.

2018Servs., 270 Neb. 987 , 709 N.W.2d 321 (2006). 4 Stewart v. Heineman, 296 Neb. 262 , 892 N.W.2d 542 (2017). 5 Applied Underwriters v. S.E.B.

2019Servs. of New York, 297 Neb. 246 , 898 N.W.2d 366 (2017). 6 Weatherly v. Cochran, 301 Neb. 426 , 918 N.W.2d 868 (2018). 7 BryanLGH v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 276 Neb. 596 , 755 N.W.2d 807 (2008). 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Nebuda v. Dodge Cty.

2019Servs. of New York, 297 Neb. 246 , 898 N.W.2d 366 (2017). 6 Weatherly v. Cochran, 301 Neb. 426 , 918 N.W.2d 868 (2018). 7 BryanLGH v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 276 Neb. 596 , 755 N.W.2d 807 (2008). 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Nebuda v. Dodge Cty.

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] Mootness is a justiciability question that an appellate court determines as a matter of law when it does not involve a factual dispute. 4 ANALYSIS [2] Because mootness is a justiciability doctrine that can prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction, 5 we turn first to the question of whether the matter is moot. [3-6] Mootness refers to events occurring after the filing of a suit that eradicate the requisite personal interest in the dispute’s resolution that existed at the beginning of the litigation. 6 An action becomes moot when the issues initially presented in the pr

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] Mootness is a justiciability question that an appellate court determines as a matter of law when it does not involve a factual dispute. 4 ANALYSIS [2] Because mootness is a justiciability doctrine that can prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction, 5 we turn first to the question of whether the matter is moot. [3-6] Mootness refers to events occurring after the filing of a suit that eradicate the requisite personal interest in the dispute’s resolution that existed at the beginning of the litigation. 6 An action becomes moot when the issues initially presented in the pr

2025Cite as 318 Neb. 503 in the county court. 6 When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. 7 [3] In considering whether jurisdiction exists under the UCCJEA, a jurisdictional question that does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law, which requires an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent from the trial court. 8 [4] Mootness is a justiciability doctrine that operates to preve

2025Because mootness is a justiciability doctrine that operates to prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction, 20 we address the parties’ mootness arguments in more detail later in our analysis, before reaching the merits. 18 See 2024 Neb. Laws, L.B. 287. 19 Reply brief for appellant at 6. 20 See In re Guardianship of Tomas J., ante p. 503, 18 N.W.3d 87 (2025). - 818 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL.

2023State v. Roberts, 304 Neb. 395 , 934 N.W.2d 845 (2019).

2023State v. Roberts, 304 Neb. 395 , 934 N.W.2d 845 (2019).

2020JUSTICIABILITY [5-7] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, courts must determine whether the issues presented are justiciable. 5 Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine that courts consider in determining whether they may properly decide a controversy. 6 The fundamental principle of ripeness is that courts should avoid entangling themselves, through premature adjudication, in abstract disagreements based on contingent future events that may not occur at all or may not occur as anticipated. 7 [8,9] A challenge to a voter ballot initiative based on substantive provisions of law is

2020JUSTICIABILITY [5-7] Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, courts must determine whether the issues presented are justiciable. 5 Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine that courts consider in determining whether they may properly decide a controversy. 6 The fundamental principle of ripeness is that courts should avoid entangling themselves, through premature adjudication, in abstract disagreements based on contingent future events that may not occur at all or may not occur as anticipated. 7 [8,9] A challenge to a voter ballot initiative based on substantive provisions of law is

2019We considered a similar argument in McFarland v. State.18 In that case, a county court judge 12 Smeal Fire Apparatus Co., supra note 2 , 279 Neb. at 707-08 , 782 N.W.2d at 882 . 13 Blakely, supra note 6. 14 Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Omaha, 282 Neb. 200 , 803 N.W.2d 17 (2011). 15 Blakely, supra note 6. 16 Id. 17 Putnam v. Fortenberry, 256 Neb. 266 , 589 N.W.2d 838 (1999). 18 McFarland v. State, 165 Neb. 487 , 86 N.W.2d 182 (1957). - 389 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports BRAMBLE v. BRAMBLE (respondent) refused to sign an order fixing a time, date, an

2017But the central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any 5 Id. 6 Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659 , 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012). 7 Id.; Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Omaha, 282 Neb. 200 , 803 N.W.2d 17 (2011). 8 Blakely v. Lancaster County, supra note 6. 9 Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714 , 605 N.W.2d 472 (2000). - 252 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports APPLIED UNDERWRITERS v. S.E.B.

2018Thus, we must first determine whether Nesbitt’s transfer to a different facility has rendered this appeal moot. [4-8] An action becomes moot when the issues initially pre- sented in the proceedings no longer exist or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the action.4 A moot case is one which seeks to determine a question that no longer rests upon existing facts or rights—i.e., a case in which the issues presented are no longer alive.5 Mootness refers to events occurring after the filing of a suit which eradicate the requisite personal interest in the resolution of th

2018Thus, we must first determine whether Nesbitt’s transfer to a different facility has rendered this appeal moot. [4-8] An action becomes moot when the issues initially pre- sented in the proceedings no longer exist or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the action.4 A moot case is one which seeks to determine a question that no longer rests upon existing facts or rights—i.e., a case in which the issues presented are no longer alive.5 Mootness refers to events occurring after the filing of a suit which eradicate the requisite personal interest in the resolution of th

2018Servs., 270 Neb. 987 , 709 N.W.2d 321 (2006). 4 Stewart v. Heineman, 296 Neb. 262 , 892 N.W.2d 542 (2017). 5 Applied Underwriters v. S.E.B.

2018Servs., 270 Neb. 987 , 709 N.W.2d 321 (2006). 4 Stewart v. Heineman, 296 Neb. 262 , 892 N.W.2d 542 (2017). 5 Applied Underwriters v. S.E.B.

2018Servs., 270 Neb. 987 , 709 N.W.2d 321 (2006). 4 Stewart v. Heineman, 296 Neb. 262 , 892 N.W.2d 542 (2017). 5 Applied Underwriters v. S.E.B.

2018Servs., 270 Neb. 987 , 709 N.W.2d 321 (2006). 4 Stewart v. Heineman, 296 Neb. 262 , 892 N.W.2d 542 (2017). 5 Applied Underwriters v. S.E.B.

2018Kuhn v. Wells Fargo Bank of Neb. , 278 Neb. 428 , 771 N.W.2d 103 (2009).

2018Kuhn v. Wells Fargo Bank of Neb. , 278 Neb. 428 , 771 N.W.2d 103 (2009).

2017Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine that courts con- sider in determining whether they may properly decide a controversy.2 The fundamental principle of ripeness is that courts should avoid entangling themselves, through premature adjudication, in abstract disagreements based on contingent future events that may not occur at all or may not occur as anticipated.3 2 Shepard v. Houston, 289 Neb. 399, 407 , 855 N.W.2d 559 , 566 (2014). 3 Id. - 858 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports HARRING v. GRESS Cite as 295 Neb. 852 Specifically, the district court noted: [I]t would

2017Ripeness is a justiciability doctrine that courts con- sider in determining whether they may properly decide a controversy.2 The fundamental principle of ripeness is that courts should avoid entangling themselves, through premature adjudication, in abstract disagreements based on contingent future events that may not occur at all or may not occur as anticipated.3 2 Shepard v. Houston, 289 Neb. 399, 407 , 855 N.W.2d 559 , 566 (2014). 3 Id. - 858 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports HARRING v. GRESS Cite as 295 Neb. 852 Specifically, the district court noted: [I]t would

2017But the central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any 5 Id. 6 Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659 , 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012). 7 Id.; Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Omaha, 282 Neb. 200 , 803 N.W.2d 17 (2011). 8 Blakely v. Lancaster County, supra note 6. 9 Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714 , 605 N.W.2d 472 (2000). - 252 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports APPLIED UNDERWRITERS v. S.E.B.

2017But the central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any 5 Id. 6 Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659 , 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012). 7 Id.; Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Omaha, 282 Neb. 200 , 803 N.W.2d 17 (2011). 8 Blakely v. Lancaster County, supra note 6. 9 Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714 , 605 N.W.2d 472 (2000). - 252 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports APPLIED UNDERWRITERS v. S.E.B.

2016The habeas 2 State v. York, 278 Neb. 306 , 770 N.W.2d 614 (2009). 3 Id. 4 Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714 , 605 N.W.2d 472 (2000). 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Id. - 252 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports AL-AMEEN v. FRAKES Cite as 293 Neb. 248 corpus writ provides illegally detained prisoners with a mecha- nism for challenging the legality of a person’s detention, imprisonment, or custodial deprivation of liberty.9 However, Al-Ameen is no longer being detained or deprived of liberty.

2016The habeas 2 State v. York, 278 Neb. 306 , 770 N.W.2d 614 (2009). 3 Id. 4 Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714 , 605 N.W.2d 472 (2000). 5 Id. 6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Id. - 252 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports AL-AMEEN v. FRAKES Cite as 293 Neb. 248 corpus writ provides illegally detained prisoners with a mecha- nism for challenging the legality of a person’s detention, imprisonment, or custodial deprivation of liberty.9 However, Al-Ameen is no longer being detained or deprived of liberty.

2014Because ripeness is peculiarly a question of timing, it is the situation now rather than the situation at the time of the district court’s decision that must govern.11 Generally, a case is ripe when no further factual development is necessary to clarify a con- crete legal dispute susceptible to specific judicial relief, as distinguished from an advisory opinion regarding contingent future events.12 First, this appeal presents a constitutional question that is essentially legal in nature and may be resolved without further factual development.13 Second, this appeal presents a concrete controver

2014Because ripeness is peculiarly a question of timing, it is the situation now rather than the situation at the time of the district court’s decision that must govern.11 Generally, a case is ripe when no further factual development is necessary to clarify a con- crete legal dispute susceptible to specific judicial relief, as distinguished from an advisory opinion regarding contingent future events.12 First, this appeal presents a constitutional question that is essentially legal in nature and may be resolved without further factual development.13 Second, this appeal presents a concrete controver

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] Mootness is a justiciability question that an appellate court determines as a matter of law when it does not involve a factual dispute. 4 ANALYSIS [2] Because mootness is a justiciability doctrine that can prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction, 5 we turn first to the question of whether the matter is moot. [3-6] Mootness refers to events occurring after the filing of a suit that eradicate the requisite personal interest in the dispute’s resolution that existed at the beginning of the litigation. 6 An action becomes moot when the issues initially presented in the pr

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] Mootness is a justiciability question that an appellate court determines as a matter of law when it does not involve a factual dispute. 4 ANALYSIS [2] Because mootness is a justiciability doctrine that can prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction, 5 we turn first to the question of whether the matter is moot. [3-6] Mootness refers to events occurring after the filing of a suit that eradicate the requisite personal interest in the dispute’s resolution that existed at the beginning of the litigation. 6 An action becomes moot when the issues initially presented in the pr

2026Dist. No. 66 v. Ewing, 319 Neb. 663 , 24 N.W.3d 861 (2025). - 72 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports BURBANK v. EVNEN action. 7 In a bench trial of a law action, the trial court’s factual findings have the effect of a jury verdict, and an appellate court will not disturb those findings unless they are clearly erroneous. 8 However, questions of law and statutory interpretation require an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the decision made by the court below. 9 [4,5] Mootness is a justiciability doctrine that operates to prevent courts from exercising

2026Dist. No. 66 v. Ewing, 319 Neb. 663 , 24 N.W.3d 861 (2025). - 72 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports BURBANK v. EVNEN action. 7 In a bench trial of a law action, the trial court’s factual findings have the effect of a jury verdict, and an appellate court will not disturb those findings unless they are clearly erroneous. 8 However, questions of law and statutory interpretation require an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the decision made by the court below. 9 [4,5] Mootness is a justiciability doctrine that operates to prevent courts from exercising

2025Co. v. Holcomb, 314 Neb. 748 , 993 N.W.2d 105 (2023). 46 In re Interest of Taylor W., 276 Neb. 679 , 757 N.W.2d 1 (2008). 47 MIMG LXXIV Colonial v. Ellis, supra note 9 . - 521 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF TOMAS J.

2025Co. v. Holcomb, 314 Neb. 748 , 993 N.W.2d 105 (2023). 46 In re Interest of Taylor W., 276 Neb. 679 , 757 N.W.2d 1 (2008). 47 MIMG LXXIV Colonial v. Ellis, supra note 9 . - 521 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF TOMAS J.

2025Co. v. Holcomb, 314 Neb. 748 , 993 N.W.2d 105 (2023). 46 In re Interest of Taylor W., 276 Neb. 679 , 757 N.W.2d 1 (2008). 47 MIMG LXXIV Colonial v. Ellis, supra note 9 . - 521 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF TOMAS J.

2025The court began by noting that “[a]ttachment is an ancillary or provisional remedy to aid in the collection of a money demand by seizure of property in advance of trial and judgment.” 57 The court then reasoned that even if the defendant was correct in his claims 53 City of Hastings v. Sheets, 317 Neb. 88 , 8 N.W.3d 771 (2024). 54 Id. 55 Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512 , 949 N.W.2d 761 (2020). 56 Keading v. Keading, 60 Cal. App. 5th 1115 , 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d 338 (2021). 57 Id. at 1130, 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 349 (unpublished portion) (internal quotation marks omitted). - 924 - Nebraska Supreme Cour

2025The court began by noting that “[a]ttachment is an ancillary or provisional remedy to aid in the collection of a money demand by seizure of property in advance of trial and judgment.” 57 The court then reasoned that even if the defendant was correct in his claims 53 City of Hastings v. Sheets, 317 Neb. 88 , 8 N.W.3d 771 (2024). 54 Id. 55 Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512 , 949 N.W.2d 761 (2020). 56 Keading v. Keading, 60 Cal. App. 5th 1115 , 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d 338 (2021). 57 Id. at 1130, 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 349 (unpublished portion) (internal quotation marks omitted). - 924 - Nebraska Supreme Cour

2025The court began by noting that “[a]ttachment is an ancillary or provisional remedy to aid in the collection of a money demand by seizure of property in advance of trial and judgment.” 57 The court then reasoned that even if the defendant was correct in his claims 53 City of Hastings v. Sheets, 317 Neb. 88 , 8 N.W.3d 771 (2024). 54 Id. 55 Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512 , 949 N.W.2d 761 (2020). 56 Keading v. Keading, 60 Cal. App. 5th 1115 , 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d 338 (2021). 57 Id. at 1130, 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 349 (unpublished portion) (internal quotation marks omitted). - 924 - Nebraska Supreme Cour

2025The court began by noting that “[a]ttachment is an ancillary or provisional remedy to aid in the collection of a money demand by seizure of property in advance of trial and judgment.” 57 The court then reasoned that even if the defendant was correct in his claims 53 City of Hastings v. Sheets, 317 Neb. 88 , 8 N.W.3d 771 (2024). 54 Id. 55 Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512 , 949 N.W.2d 761 (2020). 56 Keading v. Keading, 60 Cal. App. 5th 1115 , 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d 338 (2021). 57 Id. at 1130, 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 349 (unpublished portion) (internal quotation marks omitted). - 924 - Nebraska Supreme Cour

2024McNally v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 103, 125 , 948 N.W.2d 463 , 480 (2020) (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). 19 Brief for relators at 16. 20 Christensen v. Gale, 301 Neb. 19, 31 , 917 N.W.2d 145, 156 (2018). 21 State ex rel.