doctrines claim in Nebraska

2023Gottsch v. Bank of Stapleton, 235 Neb. 816 , 458 N.W.2d 443 (1990); R.

2023Gottsch v. Bank of Stapleton, 235 Neb. 816 , 458 N.W.2d 443 (1990); R.

2023Strunk v. Chromy-Strunk, 270 Neb. 917 , 708 N.W.2d 821 (2006). [14] A court may judicially notice existence of its records and the records of another court, but judicial notice of facts reflected in a court’s records is subject to the doctrines of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, and the law of the case.

2023Strunk v. Chromy-Strunk, 270 Neb. 917 , 708 N.W.2d 821 (2006). [14] A court may judicially notice existence of its records and the records of another court, but judicial notice of facts reflected in a court’s records is subject to the doctrines of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, and the law of the case.

2024BETANCOURT-GARCIA Cite as 317 Neb. 174 lawsuit. 36 When it applies, the law-of-the-case doctrine oper- ates to preclude reconsideration of substantially similar, if not identical, issues at successive stages of the same suit or prosecution. 37 The doctrine promotes judicial efficiency and protects parties’ settled expectations by preventing parties from relitigating settled issues within a single action. 38 We have previously recognized certain exceptions to the law-of-the-case doctrine, where “‘considerations of substantial justice suggest a reexamination of the issue is warranted,’” where ma

2023We have not previously discussed the applicability of this doctrine in the context of motions for new trial based on newly discov- ered evidence. [18-20] Unlike the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion, which involve successive lawsuits, the law-of-the-case doctrine involves successive stages of one continuing lawsuit. 60 When it applies, the law-of-the-case doctrine operates to preclude reconsideration of substantially similar, if not identical, issues at successive stages of the same suit or prosecution. 61 The doc- trine promotes judicial efficiency and protects parties’ settled expectat

2023We have not previously discussed the applicability of this doctrine in the context of motions for new trial based on newly discov- ered evidence. [18-20] Unlike the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion, which involve successive lawsuits, the law-of-the-case doctrine involves successive stages of one continuing lawsuit. 60 When it applies, the law-of-the-case doctrine operates to preclude reconsideration of substantially similar, if not identical, issues at successive stages of the same suit or prosecution. 61 The doc- trine promotes judicial efficiency and protects parties’ settled expectat

2023We have not previously discussed the applicability of this doctrine in the context of motions for new trial based on newly discov- ered evidence. [18-20] Unlike the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion, which involve successive lawsuits, the law-of-the-case doctrine involves successive stages of one continuing lawsuit. 60 When it applies, the law-of-the-case doctrine operates to preclude reconsideration of substantially similar, if not identical, issues at successive stages of the same suit or prosecution. 61 The doc- trine promotes judicial efficiency and protects parties’ settled expectat

2023We have not previously discussed the applicability of this doctrine in the context of motions for new trial based on newly discov- ered evidence. [18-20] Unlike the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion, which involve successive lawsuits, the law-of-the-case doctrine involves successive stages of one continuing lawsuit. 60 When it applies, the law-of-the-case doctrine operates to preclude reconsideration of substantially similar, if not identical, issues at successive stages of the same suit or prosecution. 61 The doc- trine promotes judicial efficiency and protects parties’ settled expectat

2023BOPPRE Cite as 315 Neb. 203 implication. 63 The doctrine is not without exceptions, however.

2021ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NGC Group claims that the district court erred in (1) deter- mining that Alliance’s claim was not barred by the statute of frauds, (2) applying the leading object rule to except the oral promise from the requirements of the statute of frauds, (3) not limiting Alliance’s damages to $104,721 pursuant to Alliance’s proof of claim filed in Acass Systems’ August 2018 bankruptcy action, and (4) failing to apply the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion to limit Alliance’s damages to $104,721. - 448 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 30 Nebraska Appellate Rep

2017Claim preclusion bars the relitigation of a claim that has been directly addressed or necessarily included in a former adjudication if (1) the former judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the for- mer judgment was a final judgment, (3) the former judgment was on the merits, and (4) the same parties or their privies were involved in both actions.23 The doctrine bars relitigation not only of those matters actually litigated, but also of those matters which might have been litigated in the prior action.24 The doctrine rests on the necessity to terminate litigation and on

2017Claim preclusion bars the relitigation of a claim that has been directly addressed or necessarily included in a former adjudication if (1) the former judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the for- mer judgment was a final judgment, (3) the former judgment was on the merits, and (4) the same parties or their privies were involved in both actions.23 The doctrine bars relitigation not only of those matters actually litigated, but also of those matters which might have been litigated in the prior action.24 The doctrine rests on the necessity to terminate litigation and on

2017Claim preclusion bars the relitigation of a claim that has been directly addressed or necessarily included in a former adjudication if (1) the former judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the for- mer judgment was a final judgment, (3) the former judgment was on the merits, and (4) the same parties or their privies were involved in both actions.23 The doctrine bars relitigation not only of those matters actually litigated, but also of those matters which might have been litigated in the prior action.24 The doctrine rests on the necessity to terminate litigation and on

2017Consequently, the Court finds that the doctrine of election of remedies and - 920 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports deNOURIE & YOST HOMES v. FROST Cite as 295 Neb. 912 doctrine of judicial estoppel bar[] D&Y’s civil conspiracy claim for the same reasons that the doctrines bar D&Y’s fraud claim.

2015It claimed - 383 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports OMAHA POLICE UNION LOCAL 101 v. CITY OF OMAHA Cite as 292 Neb. 381 written notice was waived by the Union or the Union was estopped from asserting that the City was required to give written notice of its intent to negotiate changes to the contract.

1905(Unof.) 903 , and 70 Neb. 200 .

1889In that case the court says: “In such a case the contract is not void for uncertainty, nor is there any need of applying for a reformation of the contract, provided it appear, either from the face of the instrument or extrinsic facts, which is the true and which is the false description;” citing 1 Greenleaf Ev., secs. 300, 302; Loomis v. Jackson, 19 Johns., 449 ; 2 Hill on Real Property, 358 and 368; Rootman v. Lessees of Waite, 6 Pet. [U. S.], 340.