de novo standard in Nebraska

2025State v. Boppre, 315 Neb. 203 , 995 N.W.2d 28 (2023).

2025State v. Boppre, 315 Neb. 203 , 995 N.W.2d 28 (2023).

2026State v. Garcia, 318 Neb. 228 , 14 N.W.3d 525 (2024).

2026State v. Garcia, 318 Neb. 228 , 14 N.W.3d 525 (2024).

2025AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA Cite as 318 Neb. 592 lack of subject matter jurisdiction, an appellate court employs a de novo standard of review. 15 IV.

2023WEEDER Cite as 313 Neb. 639 another or defend a legal interest in an action or proceeding. 9 In this action, there was a single plaintiff and a single defend­ ant, and we limit our jurisdictional analysis accordingly. 10 1.

2023In this case, Banghart Properties does not dispute that it violated the above-quoted provisions of the Act and the - 183 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 32 Nebraska Appellate Reports IN RE CLAIMS AGAINST BANGHART PROPERTIES Cite as 32 Neb.

2023Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(1) which is limited to a facial attack on the pleadings is subject to a de novo standard of review”). 6 State v. Rice, 295 Neb. 241 , 888 N.W.2d 159 (2016); In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 , 875 N.W.2d 408 (2016). 7 See In re Conservatorship of Franke, supra note 6 . 8 Evert v. Srb, 308 Neb. 895 , 957 N.W.2d 475 (2021). - 647 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 313 Nebraska Reports MULLER V.

2023Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(1) which is limited to a facial attack on the pleadings is subject to a de novo standard of review”). 6 State v. Rice, 295 Neb. 241 , 888 N.W.2d 159 (2016); In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 , 875 N.W.2d 408 (2016). 7 See In re Conservatorship of Franke, supra note 6 . 8 Evert v. Srb, 308 Neb. 895 , 957 N.W.2d 475 (2021). - 647 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 313 Nebraska Reports MULLER V.

2023Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(1) which is limited to a facial attack on the pleadings is subject to a de novo standard of review”). 6 State v. Rice, 295 Neb. 241 , 888 N.W.2d 159 (2016); In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 , 875 N.W.2d 408 (2016). 7 See In re Conservatorship of Franke, supra note 6 . 8 Evert v. Srb, 308 Neb. 895 , 957 N.W.2d 475 (2021). - 647 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 313 Nebraska Reports MULLER V.

2023Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(1) which is limited to a facial attack on the pleadings is subject to a de novo standard of review”). 6 State v. Rice, 295 Neb. 241 , 888 N.W.2d 159 (2016); In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 , 875 N.W.2d 408 (2016). 7 See In re Conservatorship of Franke, supra note 6 . 8 Evert v. Srb, 308 Neb. 895 , 957 N.W.2d 475 (2021). - 647 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 313 Nebraska Reports MULLER V.

2023Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(1) which is limited to a facial attack on the pleadings is subject to a de novo standard of review”). 6 State v. Rice, 295 Neb. 241 , 888 N.W.2d 159 (2016); In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 , 875 N.W.2d 408 (2016). 7 See In re Conservatorship of Franke, supra note 6 . 8 Evert v. Srb, 308 Neb. 895 , 957 N.W.2d 475 (2021). - 647 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 313 Nebraska Reports MULLER V.

2023Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(1) which is limited to a facial attack on the pleadings is subject to a de novo standard of review”). 6 State v. Rice, 295 Neb. 241 , 888 N.W.2d 159 (2016); In re Conservatorship of Franke, 292 Neb. 912 , 875 N.W.2d 408 (2016). 7 See In re Conservatorship of Franke, supra note 6 . 8 Evert v. Srb, 308 Neb. 895 , 957 N.W.2d 475 (2021). - 647 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 313 Nebraska Reports MULLER V.

2023Citing Meier v. State, 227 Neb. 376 , 417 N.W.2d 771 (1988), a case brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, D.H. asserted that a - 462 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 315 Nebraska Reports IN RE INTEREST OF D.H.

2023Citing Meier v. State, 227 Neb. 376 , 417 N.W.2d 771 (1988), a case brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, D.H. asserted that a - 462 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 315 Nebraska Reports IN RE INTEREST OF D.H.

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] When reviewing a sentence within the statutory lim- its, whether for leniency or excessiveness, an appellate court - 427 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PAULY Cite as 311 Neb. 418 reviews for an abuse of discretion. 1 A judicial abuse of discre- tion exists only when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a sub- stantial right and denying a just result in matters submitted for disposition. 2 [3] In determining whether the district court erred in deny- ing a party’s motion to

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] When reviewing a sentence within the statutory lim- its, whether for leniency or excessiveness, an appellate court - 427 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PAULY Cite as 311 Neb. 418 reviews for an abuse of discretion. 1 A judicial abuse of discre- tion exists only when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a sub- stantial right and denying a just result in matters submitted for disposition. 2 [3] In determining whether the district court erred in deny- ing a party’s motion to

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] When reviewing a sentence within the statutory lim- its, whether for leniency or excessiveness, an appellate court - 427 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PAULY Cite as 311 Neb. 418 reviews for an abuse of discretion. 1 A judicial abuse of discre- tion exists only when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a sub- stantial right and denying a just result in matters submitted for disposition. 2 [3] In determining whether the district court erred in deny- ing a party’s motion to

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] When reviewing a sentence within the statutory lim- its, whether for leniency or excessiveness, an appellate court - 427 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PAULY Cite as 311 Neb. 418 reviews for an abuse of discretion. 1 A judicial abuse of discre- tion exists only when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a sub- stantial right and denying a just result in matters submitted for disposition. 2 [3] In determining whether the district court erred in deny- ing a party’s motion to

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] When reviewing a sentence within the statutory lim- its, whether for leniency or excessiveness, an appellate court - 427 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PAULY Cite as 311 Neb. 418 reviews for an abuse of discretion. 1 A judicial abuse of discre- tion exists only when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a sub- stantial right and denying a just result in matters submitted for disposition. 2 [3] In determining whether the district court erred in deny- ing a party’s motion to

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] When reviewing a sentence within the statutory lim- its, whether for leniency or excessiveness, an appellate court - 427 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PAULY Cite as 311 Neb. 418 reviews for an abuse of discretion. 1 A judicial abuse of discre- tion exists only when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a sub- stantial right and denying a just result in matters submitted for disposition. 2 [3] In determining whether the district court erred in deny- ing a party’s motion to

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] When reviewing a sentence within the statutory lim- its, whether for leniency or excessiveness, an appellate court - 427 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PAULY Cite as 311 Neb. 418 reviews for an abuse of discretion. 1 A judicial abuse of discre- tion exists only when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a sub- stantial right and denying a just result in matters submitted for disposition. 2 [3] In determining whether the district court erred in deny- ing a party’s motion to

2021STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] A de novo standard of review applies when an appel- late court is reviewing a trial court’s dismissal of a motion for a new trial under § 29-2102(2) without conducting an - 515 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. HILL Cite as 308 Neb. 511 evidentiary hearing.

2018Cite as 299 Neb. 636 court is required to reach a conclusion independent of the lower courts’ findings.16 We find this de novo standard of review to be most applicable to juvenile matters.

2017Goodwill Strohmyer argues that the district court erred in “not award- ing an additional $55,000.00 for intangible assets . . . and by treating intangible assets in the same category as goodwill assets.”5 PFM contends that there is “no goodwill to divide upon dissolution of a professional enterprise when the clients remain with the firm taking their files.”6 The district court 5 Brief for appellant at 31. 6 Brief for appellees at 23. - 902 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports STROHMYER v. PAPILLION FAMILY MEDICINE Cite as 296 Neb. 884 held that there was “no goodwill

2015Accept., 269 Neb. 595, 599 , 694 N.W.2d 625, 629 (2005).

2002See, State v. Fitch, 255 Neb. 108, 582 N.W.2d 342 (1998) (clear error in applying good faith exception; lower court did not reach attenuation question); State v. Merrill, 252 Neb. 510, 563 N.W.2d 340 (1997) (no legitimate expectation of privacy); State v. Runge, 8 Neb.

2002See, State v. Fitch, 255 Neb. 108, 582 N.W.2d 342 (1998) (clear error in applying good faith exception; lower court did not reach attenuation question); State v. Merrill, 252 Neb. 510, 563 N.W.2d 340 (1997) (no legitimate expectation of privacy); State v. Runge, 8 Neb.

2002See, State v. Fitch, 255 Neb. 108, 582 N.W.2d 342 (1998) (clear error in applying good faith exception; lower court did not reach attenuation question); State v. Merrill, 252 Neb. 510, 563 N.W.2d 340 (1997) (no legitimate expectation of privacy); State v. Runge, 8 Neb.

2001Garner Tool & Die v. Laux, 204 Neb. 717 , 285 N.W.2d 219 (1979).

2001Garner Tool & Die v. Laux, 204 Neb. 717 , 285 N.W.2d 219 (1979).

1999Id.

1997The Supreme Court, at that time applying a de novo standard of review, found that the employee suffered from a heart condition and that “in the absence of any other explanation,” id. at 770 , 119 N.W.2d at 298 , he could have fainted, or blacked out, and fallen because of this condition.

1997The Supreme Court, at that time applying a de novo standard of review, found that the employee suffered from a heart condition and that “in the absence of any other explanation,” id. at 770 , 119 N.W.2d at 298 , he could have fainted, or blacked out, and fallen because of this condition.

1997Stores v. Polinsky, 247 Neb. 821 , 530 N.W.2d 637 (1995), however, we recognized that the de novo standard of review which must be applied by the district court when reviewing administrative agency decisions is not inconsistent with the proposition that a rebuttable presumption of validity attaches to the actions of administrative agencies.

1997Stores v. Polinsky, 247 Neb. 821 , 530 N.W.2d 637 (1995), however, we recognized that the de novo standard of review which must be applied by the district court when reviewing administrative agency decisions is not inconsistent with the proposition that a rebuttable presumption of validity attaches to the actions of administrative agencies.