11 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Liming v. Liminggreen2 sentences2024However, as pointed out by Taress in her objection to Steven’s motion, “[a]n exception to the acceptance of benefits rule exists where the right to the benefit accepted is absolute and cannot possibly be affected by reversal of the judgment.” Liming v. Liming, 272 Neb. at 539 , 723 N.W.2d at 94 . 2024However, as pointed out by Taress in her objection to Steven’s motion, “[a]n exception to the acceptance of benefits rule exists where the right to the benefit accepted is absolute and cannot possibly be affected by reversal of the judgment.” Liming v. Liming, 272 Neb. at 539 , 723 N.W.2d at 94 . | 2 | 7 |
Giese v. Giesegreen2 sentences2006Lonnie argued that pursuant to the acceptance of benefits rule as explained in this court’s decision in Giese v. Giese, 243 Neb. 60 , 497 N.W.2d 369 (1993), Gail waived her arguments with respect to the property division and alimony award by accepting the alimony. 2006Lonnie argued that pursuant to the acceptance of benefits rule as explained in this court’s decision in Giese v. Giese, 243 Neb. 60 , 497 N.W.2d 369 (1993), Gail waived her arguments with respect to the property division and alimony award by accepting the alimony. | 1 | 3 |
Seldin v. Estate of Silvermangreen2 sentences2025In more recent years, we have articulated the general acceptance of benefits rule as follows: “Generally, under the acceptance of benefits rule, an appellant may not voluntarily accept the benefits of part of a judgment in the appellant’s favor and afterward prosecute an appeal or error proceeding from the part that is against the appellant.” Seldin v. Estate of Silverman, 305 Neb. 185, 220 , 939 N.W.2d 768, 794 (2020). 2025In more recent years, we have articulated the general acceptance of benefits rule as follows: “Generally, under the acceptance of benefits rule, an appellant may not voluntarily accept the benefits of part of a judgment in the appellant’s favor and afterward prosecute an appeal or error proceeding from the part that is against the appellant.” Seldin v. Estate of Silverman, 305 Neb. 185, 220 , 939 N.W.2d 768, 794 (2020). | 1 | 3 |
Kassebaum v. Kassebaumgreen2 sentences2017The Nebraska Supreme Court in Liming v. Liming, 272 Neb. 534 , 723 N.W.2d 89 (2006), characterized the holding in Giese as a departure from the exception to the acceptance of benefits rule set forth in Kassebaum v. Kassebaum, 178 Neb. 812 , 135 N.W.2d 704 (1965). 2017The Nebraska Supreme Court in Liming v. Liming, 272 Neb. 534 , 723 N.W.2d 89 (2006), characterized the holding in Giese as a departure from the exception to the acceptance of benefits rule set forth in Kassebaum v. Kassebaum, 178 Neb. 812 , 135 N.W.2d 704 (1965). | 1 | 3 |
First Trust Co. v. Hammondgreen2 sentences2025To the same effect is an older case that analyzed the applicability of the acceptance of benefits rule by asking: “Could the appeal in this case affect the right of the plaintiff to the benefit which came to it as a result of the acceptance of the property in question?” First Trust Co. v. Hammond, 139 Neb. 546, 551 , 298 N.W. 144, 147 (1941). 2025To the same effect is an older case that analyzed the applicability of the acceptance of benefits rule by asking: “Could the appeal in this case affect the right of the plaintiff to the benefit which came to it as a result of the acceptance of the property in question?” First Trust Co. v. Hammond, 139 Neb. 546, 551 , 298 N.W. 144, 147 (1941). | 1 | 1 |
Haggard v. Haggardgreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., Haggard v. Haggard, 550 S.W.2d 374 (Tex. App. 1977). | 1 | 1 |
Fletcher v. Fletchergreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., Fletcher v. Fletcher, 227 Neb. 179 , 416 N.W.2d 570 (1987); Snyder v. Hill, 153 Neb. 721 , 45 N.W.2d 757 (1951); Harte v. Castetter, 38 Neb. 571 , 57 N.W. 381 (1894). 2025See, e.g., Fletcher v. Fletcher, 227 Neb. 179 , 416 N.W.2d 570 (1987); Snyder v. Hill, 153 Neb. 721 , 45 N.W.2d 757 (1951); Harte v. Castetter, 38 Neb. 571 , 57 N.W. 381 (1894). | 1 | 1 |
Becher v. Bechergreen2 sentences2017See Kassebaum v. Kassebaum, 178 Neb. 812 , 135 N.W.2d 704 (1965) (appel- lant who withdrew $200 from former jointly held account assigned by divorce decree to him not estopped from appeal- ing from decree on ground that property division awarded him was insufficient). - 736 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 24 Nebraska A ppellate R eports BECHER v. BECHER Cite as 24 Neb. 2017Sonia argues that while the Nebraska Supreme Court in Liming disapproved of Giese v. Giese, 243 Neb. 60 , 497 N.W.2d 369 (1993), to the extent that it limited exceptions to - 738 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 24 Nebraska A ppellate R eports BECHER v. BECHER Cite as 24 Neb. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shiers v. Shiers
green
2 sentences2006This court asserted that the reason the acceptance of benefits rule was not applied in Kassebaum was *541 that the appellant in Kassebaum “had accepted no benefit conferred upon him, but, rather, had merely discharged, pending the outcome of the appeal, the obligations imposed upon him.” Skiers, 240 Neb. at 859 , 485 N.W.2d at 576 . 2006This court asserted that the reason the acceptance of benefits rule was not applied in Kassebaum was *541 that the appellant in Kassebaum “had accepted no benefit conferred upon him, but, rather, had merely discharged, pending the outcome of the appeal, the obligations imposed upon him.” Skiers, 240 Neb. at 859 , 485 N.W.2d at 576 . | 2 | 2006–2025 |
County of Hamilton v. Bailey
neutral
2 sentences2025In Hamilton County v. Bailey, 12 Neb. 56, 60 , 10 N.W. 539 , 541 (1881), this court, citing decisions from the Iowa Supreme Court, explained that a party could not “accept the amount awarded to him by an order or judgment, and thereby receive the benefit of the same and appeal from such order or judgment.” In the decades that followed, this court continued to recognize and apply some version of that rule. 2006However, our opinion in Kassebaum correctly articulated the exceptions to the acceptance of benefits rule that we first adopted in Hamilton County v. Bailey, 12 Neb. 56 , 10 N.W. 539 (1881). | 2 | 2006–2025 |
Paulsen v. Paulsen
neutral
2 sentences2017The Liming court noted that while it had not previously revisited the holding in Giese (and Shiers), this court, in Paulsen v. Paulsen, 11 Neb. 2006App. 362 , 650 N.W.2d 497 (2002), represented the correct application of the acceptance of benefits rule under these circumstances. | 2 | 2006–2017 |
Snyder v. Hill
neutral
2 sentences2025See, e.g., Fletcher v. Fletcher, 227 Neb. 179 , 416 N.W.2d 570 (1987); Snyder v. Hill, 153 Neb. 721 , 45 N.W.2d 757 (1951); Harte v. Castetter, 38 Neb. 571 , 57 N.W. 381 (1894). 2025See, e.g., Fletcher v. Fletcher, 227 Neb. 179 , 416 N.W.2d 570 (1987); Snyder v. Hill, 153 Neb. 721 , 45 N.W.2d 757 (1951); Harte v. Castetter, 38 Neb. 571 , 57 N.W. 381 (1894). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Gentele v. Gentele
neutral
1 sentence2025GENTELE Cite as 319 Neb. 182 Returning to this case, Tara contends that her appeal involves one of the specific situations identified in Liming as not being subject to the acceptance of benefits rule. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Harte v. Castetter
green
2 sentences2025See, e.g., Fletcher v. Fletcher, 227 Neb. 179 , 416 N.W.2d 570 (1987); Snyder v. Hill, 153 Neb. 721 , 45 N.W.2d 757 (1951); Harte v. Castetter, 38 Neb. 571 , 57 N.W. 381 (1894). 2025See, e.g., Fletcher v. Fletcher, 227 Neb. 179 , 416 N.W.2d 570 (1987); Snyder v. Hill, 153 Neb. 721 , 45 N.W.2d 757 (1951); Harte v. Castetter, 38 Neb. 571 , 57 N.W. 381 (1894). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Becher v. Becher
green
1 sentence2018Sonia cross-appealed and assigned error to the court’s allocation of holiday parenting time and its failure to classify certain property as nonmarital. - 210 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports BECHER v. BECHER Cite as 299 Neb. 206 The Court of Appeals found several of Mark’s assigned errors had been waived pursuant to the acceptance of benefits doctrine and for failure to take exception to the referee’s report. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Reynek v. Reynek
green
2 sentences2006In Reynek v. Reynek, 193 Neb. 404 , 227 N.W.2d 578 (1975), we reaffirmed the acceptance of benefits rule, but adopted another exception to it where the interests of children were involved. 2006In Reynek v. Reynek, 193 Neb. 404 , 227 N.W.2d 578 (1975), we reaffirmed the acceptance of benefits rule, but adopted another exception to it where the interests of children were involved. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.