record for plain error in Nebraska

2026I therefore think affirmance is the more appropriate disposition, but I acknowl- edge the practical reality that the outcome is the same whether the judgment is affirmed or the appeal is dismissed. 11 11 See In re Estate of Marsh, 145 Neb. 559 , 17 N.W.2d 471 (1945) (recogniz- ing general rule that dismissal of appeal without examining merits oper- ates as affirmance of judgment appealed).

2026I therefore think affirmance is the more appropriate disposition, but I acknowl- edge the practical reality that the outcome is the same whether the judgment is affirmed or the appeal is dismissed. 11 11 See In re Estate of Marsh, 145 Neb. 559 , 17 N.W.2d 471 (1945) (recogniz- ing general rule that dismissal of appeal without examining merits oper- ates as affirmance of judgment appealed).

2026I therefore think affirmance is the more appropriate disposition, but I acknowl- edge the practical reality that the outcome is the same whether the judgment is affirmed or the appeal is dismissed. 11 11 See In re Estate of Marsh, 145 Neb. 559 , 17 N.W.2d 471 (1945) (recogniz- ing general rule that dismissal of appeal without examining merits oper- ates as affirmance of judgment appealed).

2026I therefore think affirmance is the more appropriate disposition, but I acknowl- edge the practical reality that the outcome is the same whether the judgment is affirmed or the appeal is dismissed. 11 11 See In re Estate of Marsh, 145 Neb. 559 , 17 N.W.2d 471 (1945) (recogniz- ing general rule that dismissal of appeal without examining merits oper- ates as affirmance of judgment appealed).

2026Once we struck the appellant’s brief as a sanction, we 8 See, e.g., Kellogg v. Mathiesen, 320 Neb. 223 , 26 N.W.3d 651 (2025) (stating rule that when appellant’s brief fails to comply with court rules, appellate court either may proceed as though party failed to file brief and provide no review at all or may examine proceedings for plain error); Houser, supra note 2 .

2026Once we struck the appellant’s brief as a sanction, we 8 See, e.g., Kellogg v. Mathiesen, 320 Neb. 223 , 26 N.W.3d 651 (2025) (stating rule that when appellant’s brief fails to comply with court rules, appellate court either may proceed as though party failed to file brief and provide no review at all or may examine proceedings for plain error); Houser, supra note 2 .

2014Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.9 [7] Where credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial court heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.10 ANALYSIS [8] In parental relocation cases, trial and appellate courts deal with the tension created by a mobile society and the prob­ lems associated with

2014Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.9 [7] Where credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial court heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.10 ANALYSIS [8] In parental relocation cases, trial and appellate courts deal with the tension created by a mobile society and the prob­ lems associated with

2024Id. -3- ANALYSIS We have reviewed the entirety of the record for plain error, including the district court’s orders regarding summary judgment and Murtaugh’s post-judgment motion, and have found none.

2022See, State v. Senteney, supra; Schnell v. Schnell, 12 Neb.

2022Acknowledging that his trial counsel did not object, Kipple argues that we should find plain error. [12,13] When a defendant has not preserved a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for direct appeal, we will review the 14 See id. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 State v. Casares, supra note 8 . 18 Id. - 661 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. KIPPLE Cite as 310 Neb. 654 record only for plain error. 19 We apply the plain error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule sparingly. 20 Therefore, in this case, we will review the record for plain error with regard to Kipple’s a

2022Acknowledging that his trial counsel did not object, Kipple argues that we should find plain error. [12,13] When a defendant has not preserved a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for direct appeal, we will review the 14 See id. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 State v. Casares, supra note 8 . 18 Id. - 661 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. KIPPLE Cite as 310 Neb. 654 record only for plain error. 19 We apply the plain error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule sparingly. 20 Therefore, in this case, we will review the record for plain error with regard to Kipple’s a

2020Having reviewed the record for plain error, we find none. - 873 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 28 Nebraska Appellate Reports HARRISON v. HARRISON Cite as 28 Neb.

2019Garcia presumably requests a plain error review because he did not object to any matter concern- ing either interpreter during the plea or sentencing hearings, - 712 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 27 Nebraska A ppellate R eports STATE v. GARCIA Cite as 27 Neb.

2017Among the 12 jurors and two alternates were a camera company employee, a director of international service and new product development, a dog walker, a natural habitat manager, a credit union employee, a furniture rental employee, a retired postal worker, a family physician, an operation and commu- nications coordinator for a natural gas company, an employee 29 Supplemental brief for appellant at 7. 30 Foster v. Chatman, supra note 24 , 136 S. Ct. at 1754 . 31 State v. Nadeem, 284 Neb. 513 , 822 N.W.2d 372 (2012); State v. Tyma, 264 Neb. 712 , 651 N.W.2d 582 (2002). 32 State v. Nadeem, supra n

2017Among the 12 jurors and two alternates were a camera company employee, a director of international service and new product development, a dog walker, a natural habitat manager, a credit union employee, a furniture rental employee, a retired postal worker, a family physician, an operation and commu- nications coordinator for a natural gas company, an employee 29 Supplemental brief for appellant at 7. 30 Foster v. Chatman, supra note 24 , 136 S. Ct. at 1754 . 31 State v. Nadeem, 284 Neb. 513 , 822 N.W.2d 372 (2012); State v. Tyma, 264 Neb. 712 , 651 N.W.2d 582 (2002). 32 State v. Nadeem, supra n

2017Among the 12 jurors and two alternates were a camera company employee, a director of international service and new product development, a dog walker, a natural habitat manager, a credit union employee, a furniture rental employee, a retired postal worker, a family physician, an operation and commu- nications coordinator for a natural gas company, an employee 29 Supplemental brief for appellant at 7. 30 Foster v. Chatman, supra note 24 , 136 S. Ct. at 1754 . 31 State v. Nadeem, 284 Neb. 513 , 822 N.W.2d 372 (2012); State v. Tyma, 264 Neb. 712 , 651 N.W.2d 582 (2002). 32 State v. Nadeem, supra n

2017Among the 12 jurors and two alternates were a camera company employee, a director of international service and new product development, a dog walker, a natural habitat manager, a credit union employee, a furniture rental employee, a retired postal worker, a family physician, an operation and commu- nications coordinator for a natural gas company, an employee 29 Supplemental brief for appellant at 7. 30 Foster v. Chatman, supra note 24 , 136 S. Ct. at 1754 . 31 State v. Nadeem, 284 Neb. 513 , 822 N.W.2d 372 (2012); State v. Tyma, 264 Neb. 712 , 651 N.W.2d 582 (2002). 32 State v. Nadeem, supra n

2016State v. Archie, 273 Neb. 612 , 733 N.W.2d 513 (2007).

2016State v. Archie, 273 Neb. 612 , 733 N.W.2d 513 (2007).

2014Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.9 [7] Where credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial court heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.10 ANALYSIS [8] In parental relocation cases, trial and appellate courts deal with the tension created by a mobile society and the prob­ lems associated with

2014Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.9 [7] Where credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial court heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.10 ANALYSIS [8] In parental relocation cases, trial and appellate courts deal with the tension created by a mobile society and the prob­ lems associated with

2014Nebraska Advance Sheets STEFFY v. STEFFY 537 Cite as 287 Neb. 529 [4,5] In this situation, an appellate court may proceed as though Brian had failed to file a brief or, alternatively, may examine the proceedings for plain error.7 The decision to pro­ ceed on plain error is at the discretion of the appellate court.8 [6] As did the Court of Appeals, we choose to review the record for plain error.

2014Plain error is error plainly evident from the record and of such a nature that to leave it uncorrected would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process.9 [7] Where credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial court heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.10 ANALYSIS [8] In parental relocation cases, trial and appellate courts deal with the tension created by a mobile society and the prob­ lems associated with

2013See, Connelly v. City of Omaha, 284 Neb. 131 , 816 N.W.2d 742 (2012); Okuda v. Hampton, 154 Neb. 886 , 50 N.W.2d 108 (1951).

2013See, Connelly v. City of Omaha, 284 Neb. 131 , 816 N.W.2d 742 (2012); Okuda v. Hampton, 154 Neb. 886 , 50 N.W.2d 108 (1951).

2013Application of Threshold Test R equiring Legitimate R eason to R emove Child From Nebraska [10] In Nebraska, the standards set forth in Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242 , 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999), and Wild v. Wild, 13 Neb.

1994State v. Breaker, 178 Neb. 887 , 136 N.W.2d 161 (1965).

1994State v. Breaker, 178 Neb. 887 , 136 N.W.2d 161 (1965).

1993Defendant asserts that NJI 14.08 suffers from the same infirmities as those condemned by the U.S. Supreme Court in Cage v. Louisiana, supra. In State v. Morley, 239 Neb. 141 , 474 N.W.2d 660 (1991), this court considered the same assignment of error with regard to a reasonable doubt jury instruction in light of Cage .

1993Defendant asserts that NJI 14.08 suffers from the same infirmities as those condemned by the U.S. Supreme Court in Cage v. Louisiana, supra. In State v. Morley, 239 Neb. 141 , 474 N.W.2d 660 (1991), this court considered the same assignment of error with regard to a reasonable doubt jury instruction in light of Cage .

1990“The juvenile court has broad discretion as to the disposition of children who are found to be neglected under § 43-247(3)(a).” In re Interest of V.T. and L.T., supra at 258, 369 N.W.2d at 96 .

1988McCombs v. Prenosil, 226 Neb. 839, 415 N.W.2d 453 (1987). *53 In our review of the record for plain error, we note that appellant alleges that he was an employee of the City of Lincoln and was injured while carrying out his duties on the job.

1988McCombs v. Prenosil, 226 Neb. 839, 415 N.W.2d 453 (1987). *53 In our review of the record for plain error, we note that appellant alleges that he was an employee of the City of Lincoln and was injured while carrying out his duties on the job.