pleading requirement in Nebraska

2018Therefore, we affirm. - 96 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports CHAFIN v. WISCONSIN PROVINCE SOCIETY OF JESUS Cite as 301 Neb. 94 BACKGROUND 1969 A doption Because of the procedural posture, we state facts as alleged in the amended complaint.

2018Therefore, we affirm. - 96 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports CHAFIN v. WISCONSIN PROVINCE SOCIETY OF JESUS Cite as 301 Neb. 94 BACKGROUND 1969 A doption Because of the procedural posture, we state facts as alleged in the amended complaint.

2025But in our view, if there was any confusion governing the requirement that the claim must separately be stated with particularity within the assign- ments of error section of the brief for the appellant, meaning the assigned error itself must satisfy the two-prong pleading standard, that matter was recently settled in State v. German, 316 Neb. 841 , 7 N.W.3d 206 (2024).

2025Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512 , 949 N.W.2d 761 (2020).

2025Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512 , 949 N.W.2d 761 (2020).

2025RUPP Cite as 320 Neb. 502 review unless, standing by itself, the assignment of error con- tains enough particularity to satisfy what the Court of Appeals described as “a two-prong pleading standard” 12 set forth in State v. Abdullah 13: (1) a district court reviewing a petition for postconviction relief would be able to recognize whether the claim was raised and preserved on direct appeal and (2) the appellate court on direct appeal would be able to deter- mine if the claim could be decided upon the trial record.

2024Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, and courts have a duty to determine whether they have subject matter jurisdiction over a matter. 20 In the subsections that follow, we: • set forth the parties’ arguments; • summarize our case law involving schools and students prior to the adoption of the PSTCA’s recreational activity exemption and our decision prompting a legislative response; • quote the statutory amendment adding the recreational activity exemption; • recite principles of statutory interpretation and construction, including those specific to sovereign immunity; • interpret th

2024Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, and courts have a duty to determine whether they have subject matter jurisdiction over a matter. 20 In the subsections that follow, we: • set forth the parties’ arguments; • summarize our case law involving schools and students prior to the adoption of the PSTCA’s recreational activity exemption and our decision prompting a legislative response; • quote the statutory amendment adding the recreational activity exemption; • recite principles of statutory interpretation and construction, including those specific to sovereign immunity; • interpret th

2023Indeed, the statutes governing motions for new trial are perhaps even more specific in this regard than the statutes governing postconviction motions, because § 29-2102(2) requires motions for new trial to “set forth sufficient facts” and provides that if a motion fails to do so, “the court may, on its own motion, dismiss the motion without a hearing.” [13] To assist both litigants and trial courts, we clarify that in order to “set forth sufficient facts” under § 29-2102(2), a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence should clearly and succinctly identify the evidence claimed to

2023Indeed, the statutes governing motions for new trial are perhaps even more specific in this regard than the statutes governing postconviction motions, because § 29-2102(2) requires motions for new trial to “set forth sufficient facts” and provides that if a motion fails to do so, “the court may, on its own motion, dismiss the motion without a hearing.” [13] To assist both litigants and trial courts, we clarify that in order to “set forth sufficient facts” under § 29-2102(2), a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence should clearly and succinctly identify the evidence claimed to

2021However, in Lindsay v. Fitl, 293 Neb. 677, 682 , 879 N.W.2d 385, 390 (2016), the Nebraska Supreme Court qualified: For purposes of a motion to dismiss, “‘“the court generally must ignore materials outside the pleadings, but it may consider some materials that are part of the public record or do not contradict the complaint, as well as materials that are necessarily embraced by the pleadings.”’” DMK Biodiesel v. McCoy, 285 Neb. 974, 980 , 830 N.W.2d 490, 496 (2013), quoting Miller v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., 688 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2012).

2017Ed. 2d 390 (1976). - 975 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports DAVIS v. STATE Cite as 297 Neb. 955 Additionally, in United States v. Gaubert,50 the Supreme Court imposed a pleading standard that requires a plaintiff’s factual allegations to support a finding that the FTCA’s discre- tionary function exception does not apply when a presumption of discretionary conduct exists: When established governmental policy, as expressed or implied by statute, regulation, or agency guidelines, allows a Government agent to exercise discretion, it must be presumed that the agent’s act

2017The district court concluded Buttercase’s “new allegations relate to evidence that could have been used by his trial counsel in support of the theory that the victim consented to Buttercase’s sexual conduct.” Whereas, “the original motion for post-conviction relief alleges ineffective assistance of [Buttercase’s] trial counsel that are separate deficiencies from the proposed amendment.” The district court cited to United States v. Craycraft, 167 F.3d 451 (8th Cir. 1999) and State v. Manning, 18 Neb.

2017P. 15(c)(2)” provides that an “amendment to a pleading shall ‘relate back’ to the date of the original pleading only if the claim asserted in the original pleading and the claim asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence.” United States v. Craycraft, 167 F.3d at 457 .

2002City State Bank v. Holstine, 260 Neb. 578 , 618 N.W.2d 704 (2000); Moore v. American Charter Fed.

2002City State Bank v. Holstine, 260 Neb. 578 , 618 N.W.2d 704 (2000); Moore v. American Charter Fed.

1999Professional Firefighters of Omaha v. City of Omaha, 243 Neb. 166 , 498 N.W.2d 325 (1993).

1999Professional Firefighters of Omaha v. City of Omaha, 243 Neb. 166 , 498 N.W.2d 325 (1993).

1993See, Boykins v. Ambridge Area School Dist., 621 F.2d 75 (3d Cir.1980); MacMurray v. Bd. of Trustees of Bloomsburg S.C., supra .

1980In State v. Etchison, 190 Neb. 629 , 211 N.W.2d 405 (1973), the opinion recites that a motion to quash was denied after a plea of not guilty had been entered by the defendant.

1980In State v. Etchison, 190 Neb. 629 , 211 N.W.2d 405 (1973), the opinion recites that a motion to quash was denied after a plea of not guilty had been entered by the defendant.

1884Without entering into any discussion of the rules of pleading and practice involved in this question, we shall be content to refer to the case of School District No. 86 in York County v. McIntie, 14 Neb., 46 , and adopt the conclusions there reached. 1st, That there is no such departure as would warrant the court in sustaining the motion to strike; and 2d, The subsequent filing of an answer and joining issue on this pleading is a waiver of the error if any had existed.