cannot commit error in Nebraska

2022It is generally true that when a party raises an issue for the first time in an appellate court, the court will disregard it because a lower court cannot commit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted to it for disposition. 10 However, we have previously found that this rationale does not apply in cases, like this one, where the party would have had to ask a lower court not to follow a controlling decision from this court in order to preserve for appeal an issue that the party claims we incorrectly decided. 11 As such, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan,

2022It is generally true that when a party raises an issue for the first time in an appellate court, the court will disregard it because a lower court cannot commit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted to it for disposition. 10 However, we have previously found that this rationale does not apply in cases, like this one, where the party would have had to ask a lower court not to follow a controlling decision from this court in order to preserve for appeal an issue that the party claims we incorrectly decided. 11 As such, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan,

2020Lackman v. Rousselle, 257 Neb. 87 , 596 N.W.2d 15 (1999).

2020Lackman v. Rousselle, 257 Neb. 87 , 596 N.W.2d 15 (1999).

2018As stated in Logsdon, the presumption is that a personal risk is non- compensable and it is incumbent on the employee to prove an affirmative condition of employment caused or contributed to the ultimate injury.29 The increased-danger rule may be a valid theory for establishing that an injury arose out of employment, which we need not determine here, but it is a separate theory from arguing a fall was caused by an employment condition or a neutral cause. [8,9] Absent plain error, when an issue is raised for the first time in an appellate court, it will be disregarded inasmuch as the trial cour

2018As stated in Logsdon, the presumption is that a personal risk is non- compensable and it is incumbent on the employee to prove an affirmative condition of employment caused or contributed to the ultimate injury.29 The increased-danger rule may be a valid theory for establishing that an injury arose out of employment, which we need not determine here, but it is a separate theory from arguing a fall was caused by an employment condition or a neutral cause. [8,9] Absent plain error, when an issue is raised for the first time in an appellate court, it will be disregarded inasmuch as the trial cour

2019Ways v. Shively, 264 Neb. 250 , 646 N.W.2d 621 (2002).

2019Ways v. Shively, 264 Neb. 250 , 646 N.W.2d 621 (2002).

2018As stated in Logsdon, the presumption is that a personal risk is non- compensable and it is incumbent on the employee to prove an affirmative condition of employment caused or contributed to the ultimate injury.29 The increased-danger rule may be a valid theory for establishing that an injury arose out of employment, which we need not determine here, but it is a separate theory from arguing a fall was caused by an employment condition or a neutral cause. [8,9] Absent plain error, when an issue is raised for the first time in an appellate court, it will be disregarded inasmuch as the trial cour

2018As stated in Logsdon, the presumption is that a personal risk is non- compensable and it is incumbent on the employee to prove an affirmative condition of employment caused or contributed to the ultimate injury.29 The increased-danger rule may be a valid theory for establishing that an injury arose out of employment, which we need not determine here, but it is a separate theory from arguing a fall was caused by an employment condition or a neutral cause. [8,9] Absent plain error, when an issue is raised for the first time in an appellate court, it will be disregarded inasmuch as the trial cour

2018State v. Davlin, 265 Neb. 386 , 658 N.W.2d 1 (2003).

2018State v. Davlin, 265 Neb. 386 , 658 N.W.2d 1 (2003).

2005In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 258 Neb. 131 , 602 N.W.2d 439 (1999).

2005In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 258 Neb. 131 , 602 N.W.2d 439 (1999).

2026Id.

2025Id.

2026Id.

2026Id.

2023Appellate courts do not entertain such new arguments or theo- ries because “a lower court cannot commit error in resolving an issue that was never presented and submitted to it for dis- position.” Id. at 71-72 , 977 N.W.2d at 903 .

2023Appellate courts do not entertain such new arguments or theo- ries because “a lower court cannot commit error in resolving an issue that was never presented and submitted to it for dis- position.” Id. at 71-72 , 977 N.W.2d at 903 .

2017Id.

2017Cite as 297 Neb. 143 was not presented to or passed upon by the trial court.8 This is because the trial court cannot commit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted to it for disposition.9 Because Charissa never presented the issue to the trial court, we decline to address whether § 43-1414 has any application on these facts. [10] Section 43-1412.01 is the statute governing disestab- lishment of paternity.

2015Id.

2014Id.

2004State v. Davlin, 265 Neb. 386 , 658 N.W.2d 1 (2003); State v. Faber, 264 Neb. 198 , 647 N.W.2d 67 (2002).

2004State v. Davlin, 265 Neb. 386 , 658 N.W.2d 1 (2003); State v. Faber, 264 Neb. 198 , 647 N.W.2d 67 (2002).

2002In re Adoption of Luke, 263 Neb. 365 , 640 N.W.2d 374 (2002). 4.

2002In re Adoption of Luke, 263 Neb. 365 , 640 N.W.2d 374 (2002). 4.

2024ACTIVE SPINE PHYSICAL THERAPY Cite as 318 Neb. 64 [4] An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s deci- sion is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. 7 [5] To sustain a motion for JNOV, the court resolves the con- troversy as a matter of law and may do so only when the facts are such that reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion. 8 [6] A motion for JNOV may be granted when the movant’s previous motion for directed verdict, made at the conclusion of all the evidence, should have been sust

2024ACTIVE SPINE PHYSICAL THERAPY Cite as 318 Neb. 64 [20,21] We do not read § 25-1912.01 as modifying our longstanding case law holding that an appellant assigning as error on appeal the denial of a motion for new trial does not properly raise as grounds for trial court error any grounds that were never assigned or argued to the trial court with respect to the motion. 47 A trial court cannot commit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted to it for disposition, 48 and an issue not presented to or passed on by the trial court is not appropriate for consideration on appeal. 49 Stat

2024See, V.C. v. Casady, 262 Neb. 714 , 634 N.W.2d 798 (2001); Maxwell v. Montey, 262 Neb. 160 , 631 N.W.2d 455 (2001).

2024See, V.C. v. Casady, 262 Neb. 714 , 634 N.W.2d 798 (2001); Maxwell v. Montey, 262 Neb. 160 , 631 N.W.2d 455 (2001).

2024YAH Cite as 317 Neb. 730 Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Peter C.

2024YAH Cite as 317 Neb. 730 Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Peter C.

2023When an argument or theory is raised for the first time on appeal, it will be disregarded inasmuch as a lower court cannot commit error in resolving an issue that was never pre- sented and submitted to it for disposition. 28 24 See Buttercase v. Davis, ante p. 1, 982 N.W.2d 240 (2022) (to be considered by appellate court, alleged error must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in brief of party asserting error). 25 See 2019 Neb.

2022DAVIS Cite as 313 Neb. 1 exculpatory evidence,” fails because it was not raised before the trial court. 15 When an argument or theory is raised for the first time on appeal, it will be disregarded inasmuch as a lower court cannot commit error in resolving an issue that was never presented and submitted to it for disposition. 16 The same is true for Buttercase’s arguments that he is actu- ally innocent of obscenity because the videos and images are not obscene under the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Miller v. California 17 and that the federal obscenity statute cannot be constitutionally appl

2023Id.

2020Id.

2018In an ordinary civil case, an appellate court will not consider an issue on appeal that was not presented to or passed upon by the trial court, because a trial court cannot commit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted to it for disposition.12 Statutes govern the scope of review by the TERC, and, as an administrative 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 See Brown v. Jacobsen Land & Cattle Co., 297 Neb. 541 , 900 N.W.2d 765 (2017). - 273 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports UPPER REPUBLICAN NRD v. DUNDY CTY.

2018In an ordinary civil case, an appellate court will not consider an issue on appeal that was not presented to or passed upon by the trial court, because a trial court cannot commit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted to it for disposition.12 Statutes govern the scope of review by the TERC, and, as an administrative 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 See Brown v. Jacobsen Land & Cattle Co., 297 Neb. 541 , 900 N.W.2d 765 (2017). - 273 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports UPPER REPUBLICAN NRD v. DUNDY CTY.

2018As stated in Logsdon, the presumption is that a personal risk is non- compensable and it is incumbent on the employee to prove an affirmative condition of employment caused or contributed to the ultimate injury.29 The increased-danger rule may be a valid theory for establishing that an injury arose out of employment, which we need not determine here, but it is a separate theory from arguing a fall was caused by an employment condition or a neutral cause. [8,9] Absent plain error, when an issue is raised for the first time in an appellate court, it will be disregarded inasmuch as the trial cour

2018As stated in Logsdon, the presumption is that a personal risk is non- compensable and it is incumbent on the employee to prove an affirmative condition of employment caused or contributed to the ultimate injury.29 The increased-danger rule may be a valid theory for establishing that an injury arose out of employment, which we need not determine here, but it is a separate theory from arguing a fall was caused by an employment condition or a neutral cause. [8,9] Absent plain error, when an issue is raised for the first time in an appellate court, it will be disregarded inasmuch as the trial cour

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

2016In re Estate of Rosso, 270 Neb. 323 , 701 N.W.2d 355 (2005).

2016In re Estate of Rosso, 270 Neb. 323 , 701 N.W.2d 355 (2005).