situation bar in Nebraska

2014The court’s August 8, 2012, order stated that the new statute was “not applicable to the situation at bar, otherwise it would be an ex post facto law.” But more important, where an indi- vidual seeks to implement this remedy, the statute expressly requires the court to “appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interest of the child.”16 During the proceedings leading 12 See id. 13 See Federal Land Bank v. McElhose, 222 Neb. 448 , 384 N.W.2d 295 (1986) (judgment of court of equity is called decree). 14 Fitzgerald v. Community Redevelopment Corp., 283 Neb. 428 , 811 N.W.2d 178 (2012). 15 See

2014The court’s August 8, 2012, order stated that the new statute was “not applicable to the situation at bar, otherwise it would be an ex post facto law.” But more important, where an indi- vidual seeks to implement this remedy, the statute expressly requires the court to “appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interest of the child.”16 During the proceedings leading 12 See id. 13 See Federal Land Bank v. McElhose, 222 Neb. 448 , 384 N.W.2d 295 (1986) (judgment of court of equity is called decree). 14 Fitzgerald v. Community Redevelopment Corp., 283 Neb. 428 , 811 N.W.2d 178 (2012). 15 See

2006Id. at 310 , 83 N.W.2d at 22-23 .

2006Id. at 310 , 83 N.W.2d at 22-23 .

1981On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred by applying to this situation the rule adopted by this court in Hoover v. Haller, 146 Neb. 697 , 21 N.W.2d 450 (1946).

1981On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred by applying to this situation the rule adopted by this court in Hoover v. Haller, 146 Neb. 697 , 21 N.W.2d 450 (1946).

1979The general rule, where there is an executory contract for the sale of real estate and an intervening judgment lien *868 prior to the execution and delivery of a deed, is set forth in 87 A.L.R. 1506 : "Specifically, apart from contrary statutory provisions, the lien of a judgment or attachment against the vendor in an executory contract does not attach to any interest in excess of the real interest of the vendor as of the time of the judgment * * *." Cited thereunder are a number of Nebraska cases including Courtnay v. Parker, 16 Neb. 311 , 20 N.W. 120 ; Doe v. Startzer, 62 Neb. 718 , 87 N.W.

1979The general rule, where there is an executory contract for the sale of real estate and an intervening judgment lien *868 prior to the execution and delivery of a deed, is set forth in 87 A.L.R. 1506 : "Specifically, apart from contrary statutory provisions, the lien of a judgment or attachment against the vendor in an executory contract does not attach to any interest in excess of the real interest of the vendor as of the time of the judgment * * *." Cited thereunder are a number of Nebraska cases including Courtnay v. Parker, 16 Neb. 311 , 20 N.W. 120 ; Doe v. Startzer, 62 Neb. 718 , 87 N.W.

1979The general rule, where there is an executory contract for the sale of real estate and an intervening judgment lien *868 prior to the execution and delivery of a deed, is set forth in 87 A.L.R. 1506 : "Specifically, apart from contrary statutory provisions, the lien of a judgment or attachment against the vendor in an executory contract does not attach to any interest in excess of the real interest of the vendor as of the time of the judgment * * *." Cited thereunder are a number of Nebraska cases including Courtnay v. Parker, 16 Neb. 311 , 20 N.W. 120 ; Doe v. Startzer, 62 Neb. 718 , 87 N.W.

1978The situation at bar is governed by our recent pronouncement in Spanheimer Roofing & Supply Co. v. Thompson, 198 Neb. 710 , 255 N. W. 2d 265 (1977).

1978The situation at bar is governed by our recent pronouncement in Spanheimer Roofing & Supply Co. v. Thompson, 198 Neb. 710 , 255 N. W. 2d 265 (1977).

1959See, also, Independent Warehouses, Inc. v. Scheele, 331 U.S. 70 , 67 S.Ct. 1062 , 91 L.Ed. 1346 ; State of Minnesota v. Blasius, 290 U.S. 1 , 54 S.Ct. 34 , 78 L.Ed. 131 .

1959See, also, Independent Warehouses, Inc. v. Scheele, 331 U.S. 70 , 67 S.Ct. 1062 , 91 L.Ed. 1346 ; State of Minnesota v. Blasius, 290 U.S. 1 , 54 S.Ct. 34 , 78 L.Ed. 131 .

1959In Whiteside v. Norton, 205 F. 5 , 45 L.

1957Wells v. State, 152 Neb. 668 , 42 N. W. 2d 363 ; State v. Novak, supra. It is the rule also that a complaint based on the violation of a city ordinance will be deemed sufficient on appeal, except in case of a complete failure to state a cause of action.

1957Wells v. State, 152 Neb. 668 , 42 N. W. 2d 363 ; State v. Novak, supra. It is the rule also that a complaint based on the violation of a city ordinance will be deemed sufficient on appeal, except in case of a complete failure to state a cause of action.

1956The rule is set forth in Long v. Whalen, supra, as follows: “If it does not appear from the record that an incorrect instruction to the jury did not affect the result of the trial of the case unfavorably to the party affected by it the giving *208 of the instruction must be considered prejudicial error.” An apposite statement of the rule is found in Bailey v. Spindler, 161 Neb. 563 , 74 N. W. 2d 344 , as follows: “It is error without prejudice to instruct on questions not raised by pleadings or applicable evidence when the instructions do not have a tendency to mislead the jury.” See, also, Ro

1956The rule is set forth in Long v. Whalen, supra, as follows: “If it does not appear from the record that an incorrect instruction to the jury did not affect the result of the trial of the case unfavorably to the party affected by it the giving *208 of the instruction must be considered prejudicial error.” An apposite statement of the rule is found in Bailey v. Spindler, 161 Neb. 563 , 74 N. W. 2d 344 , as follows: “It is error without prejudice to instruct on questions not raised by pleadings or applicable evidence when the instructions do not have a tendency to mislead the jury.” See, also, Ro

1956The rule is set forth in Long v. Whalen, supra, as follows: “If it does not appear from the record that an incorrect instruction to the jury did not affect the result of the trial of the case unfavorably to the party affected by it the giving *208 of the instruction must be considered prejudicial error.” An apposite statement of the rule is found in Bailey v. Spindler, 161 Neb. 563 , 74 N. W. 2d 344 , as follows: “It is error without prejudice to instruct on questions not raised by pleadings or applicable evidence when the instructions do not have a tendency to mislead the jury.” See, also, Ro

1956The rule is set forth in Long v. Whalen, supra, as follows: “If it does not appear from the record that an incorrect instruction to the jury did not affect the result of the trial of the case unfavorably to the party affected by it the giving *208 of the instruction must be considered prejudicial error.” An apposite statement of the rule is found in Bailey v. Spindler, 161 Neb. 563 , 74 N. W. 2d 344 , as follows: “It is error without prejudice to instruct on questions not raised by pleadings or applicable evidence when the instructions do not have a tendency to mislead the jury.” See, also, Ro

1956The rule is set forth in Long v. Whalen, supra, as follows: “If it does not appear from the record that an incorrect instruction to the jury did not affect the result of the trial of the case unfavorably to the party affected by it the giving *208 of the instruction must be considered prejudicial error.” An apposite statement of the rule is found in Bailey v. Spindler, 161 Neb. 563 , 74 N. W. 2d 344 , as follows: “It is error without prejudice to instruct on questions not raised by pleadings or applicable evidence when the instructions do not have a tendency to mislead the jury.” See, also, Ro

1956The rule is set forth in Long v. Whalen, supra, as follows: “If it does not appear from the record that an incorrect instruction to the jury did not affect the result of the trial of the case unfavorably to the party affected by it the giving *208 of the instruction must be considered prejudicial error.” An apposite statement of the rule is found in Bailey v. Spindler, 161 Neb. 563 , 74 N. W. 2d 344 , as follows: “It is error without prejudice to instruct on questions not raised by pleadings or applicable evidence when the instructions do not have a tendency to mislead the jury.” See, also, Ro

1956The rule is set forth in Long v. Whalen, supra, as follows: “If it does not appear from the record that an incorrect instruction to the jury did not affect the result of the trial of the case unfavorably to the party affected by it the giving *208 of the instruction must be considered prejudicial error.” An apposite statement of the rule is found in Bailey v. Spindler, 161 Neb. 563 , 74 N. W. 2d 344 , as follows: “It is error without prejudice to instruct on questions not raised by pleadings or applicable evidence when the instructions do not have a tendency to mislead the jury.” See, also, Ro

1956The rule is set forth in Long v. Whalen, supra, as follows: “If it does not appear from the record that an incorrect instruction to the jury did not affect the result of the trial of the case unfavorably to the party affected by it the giving *208 of the instruction must be considered prejudicial error.” An apposite statement of the rule is found in Bailey v. Spindler, 161 Neb. 563 , 74 N. W. 2d 344 , as follows: “It is error without prejudice to instruct on questions not raised by pleadings or applicable evidence when the instructions do not have a tendency to mislead the jury.” See, also, Ro

1947In People v. Rambaud, 78 Cal. App. 685 , 248 P. 954 , the court in discussing the question said: “While some of the earlier cases announce the rule that a disallowed challenge for cause will be considered upon appeal, under the circumstances here presented (which is the. same as the situation at bar), all the later decisions and the ones which announce the correct rule, hold against the appellant’s contention.

1947In People v. Rambaud, 78 Cal. App. 685 , 248 P. 954 , the court in discussing the question said: “While some of the earlier cases announce the rule that a disallowed challenge for cause will be considered upon appeal, under the circumstances here presented (which is the. same as the situation at bar), all the later decisions and the ones which announce the correct rule, hold against the appellant’s contention.

1946He relies primarily upon Burnham v. Bennison, 121 Neb. 291 , 236 N. W. 745 ; In re Estate of Frerichs, 120 Neb. 462 , 233 N. W. 456 ; and John A. Creighton Home v. Waltman, 140 Neb. 3 , 299 N. W. 261 , but they do not sustain the contention because not controlling in the situation at bar.

1946He relies primarily upon Burnham v. Bennison, 121 Neb. 291 , 236 N. W. 745 ; In re Estate of Frerichs, 120 Neb. 462 , 233 N. W. 456 ; and John A. Creighton Home v. Waltman, 140 Neb. 3 , 299 N. W. 261 , but they do not sustain the contention because not controlling in the situation at bar.

1946He relies primarily upon Burnham v. Bennison, 121 Neb. 291 , 236 N. W. 745 ; In re Estate of Frerichs, 120 Neb. 462 , 233 N. W. 456 ; and John A. Creighton Home v. Waltman, 140 Neb. 3 , 299 N. W. 261 , but they do not sustain the contention because not controlling in the situation at bar.

1946He relies primarily upon Burnham v. Bennison, 121 Neb. 291 , 236 N. W. 745 ; In re Estate of Frerichs, 120 Neb. 462 , 233 N. W. 456 ; and John A. Creighton Home v. Waltman, 140 Neb. 3 , 299 N. W. 261 , but they do not sustain the contention because not controlling in the situation at bar.

1946He relies primarily upon Burnham v. Bennison, 121 Neb. 291 , 236 N. W. 745 ; In re Estate of Frerichs, 120 Neb. 462 , 233 N. W. 456 ; and John A. Creighton Home v. Waltman, 140 Neb. 3 , 299 N. W. 261 , but they do not sustain the contention because not controlling in the situation at bar.

1946He relies primarily upon Burnham v. Bennison, 121 Neb. 291 , 236 N. W. 745 ; In re Estate of Frerichs, 120 Neb. 462 , 233 N. W. 456 ; and John A. Creighton Home v. Waltman, 140 Neb. 3 , 299 N. W. 261 , but they do not sustain the contention because not controlling in the situation at bar.

1946In Mantell v. State, 141 Neb. 15 N. W. 2d 586, it was held: “Where the evidence is conclusive that the defendant shot with intent to wound, it is not error for the court to fail to instruct the jury with reference to the offense of simple assault, or assault and battery.” As a matter of course it follows that it is not mandatory in such a situation that the instruction be given even though properly requested by the defendant.

1946In so holding we have not overlooked qualification of the rule stated in In re Estate of Johnson, 100 Neb. 791 , 161 N. W. 429 , which is factually distinguishable from the situation at bar.

1946In so holding we have not overlooked qualification of the rule stated in In re Estate of Johnson, 100 Neb. 791 , 161 N. W. 429 , which is factually distinguishable from the situation at bar.

1931Gibson v. Hammang, 63 Neb. 349 .

1930Sutton v. Kelliher, 115 Ia. 632 ; 27 C.