second assignment error in Nebraska

2022No Error in Denying Summary Judgment Based on Discretionary Function Exemption In connection with its summary judgment motion, the SID did not dispute that Kriss mixed or combined herbicides 32 See id. 33 State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762 , 696 N.W.2d 860 (2005). - 138 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports CLARK v. SARGENT IRR.

2022No Error in Denying Summary Judgment Based on Discretionary Function Exemption In connection with its summary judgment motion, the SID did not dispute that Kriss mixed or combined herbicides 32 See id. 33 State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762 , 696 N.W.2d 860 (2005). - 138 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports CLARK v. SARGENT IRR.

1996In refusing to address the issue, this court stated: As it is well established that one must stand on a pleading against which a demurrer has been sustained in order to preserve the right to appeal the decision on the par *396 ticular demurrer, Raskey v. Michelin Tire Corp., 223 Neb. 520 , 391 N.W.2d 123 (1986), we address solely the second assignment of error.

1996In refusing to address the issue, this court stated: As it is well established that one must stand on a pleading against which a demurrer has been sustained in order to preserve the right to appeal the decision on the par *396 ticular demurrer, Raskey v. Michelin Tire Corp., 223 Neb. 520 , 391 N.W.2d 123 (1986), we address solely the second assignment of error.

1996Floyd v. Worobec, *240 248 Neb. 605 , 537 N.W.2d 512 (1995); State v. Carter, 246 Neb. 953 , 524 N.W.2d 763 (1994). (b) Applicability of Law to Facts (i) Testimony Newman first argues that Grady and Denny’s testimony should have been excluded because it was offered for an improper purpose and not for one of the purposes listed in Neb.

1996Floyd v. Worobec, *240 248 Neb. 605 , 537 N.W.2d 512 (1995); State v. Carter, 246 Neb. 953 , 524 N.W.2d 763 (1994). (b) Applicability of Law to Facts (i) Testimony Newman first argues that Grady and Denny’s testimony should have been excluded because it was offered for an improper purpose and not for one of the purposes listed in Neb.

1994State v. Wegener, 239 Neb. 946 , 479 N.W.2d 783 (1992); State v. Zitterkopf, 236 Neb. 743 , 463 N.W.2d 616 (1990); State v. Pierce, 231 Neb. 966 , 439 N.W.2d 435 (1989).

1994State v. Wegener, 239 Neb. 946 , 479 N.W.2d 783 (1992); State v. Zitterkopf, 236 Neb. 743 , 463 N.W.2d 616 (1990); State v. Pierce, 231 Neb. 966 , 439 N.W.2d 435 (1989).

1992Co., 85 Wis. 2d 675 , 271 N.W.2d 368 (1978).

1992Co., 85 Wis. 2d 675 , 271 N.W.2d 368 (1978).

1990Grounds for Termination The question presented by the parents' second assignment of error is whether, on this review de novo on the record, we find that the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes, In re Interest of J.B. et al., 235 Neb. 530 , 455 N.W.2d 817 (1990), the grounds for termination alleged by the State's petition and specifically by § 43-292(2), to wit, that the parents "have substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected" their children and have "refused to give" them "necessary parental care and protection." The answer is that the evidence does so establish.

1990Grounds for Termination The question presented by the parents' second assignment of error is whether, on this review de novo on the record, we find that the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes, In re Interest of J.B. et al., 235 Neb. 530 , 455 N.W.2d 817 (1990), the grounds for termination alleged by the State's petition and specifically by § 43-292(2), to wit, that the parents "have substantially and continuously or repeatedly neglected" their children and have "refused to give" them "necessary parental care and protection." The answer is that the evidence does so establish.

1968“An application for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed unless it appears that the rights of the defendant were prejudiced thereby.” Svehla v. State, supra. In support thereof, see Phillips v. State, supra. With reference to the second assignment of error, defendant contends that his confession was admitted in violation of the rules laid down in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

1968“An application for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed unless it appears that the rights of the defendant were prejudiced thereby.” Svehla v. State, supra. In support thereof, see Phillips v. State, supra. With reference to the second assignment of error, defendant contends that his confession was admitted in violation of the rules laid down in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

2025ANTONIUTTI Cite as 318 Neb. 465 original complaint was filed under § 25-201.02.

2025Amended Complaint Filed Outside Limitations Period and Relation Back Statute Inapplicable The Johnsons’ second assignment of error challenges the district court’s determinations that the amended complaint was untimely filed and that it did not relate back to date the 30 Id. at 719, 733 N.W.2d at 190 . 31 Id. at 721 , 733 N.W.2d at 191 . - 481 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports JOHNSON V.

2025Amended Complaint Filed Outside Limitations Period and Relation Back Statute Inapplicable The Johnsons’ second assignment of error challenges the district court’s determinations that the amended complaint was untimely filed and that it did not relate back to date the 30 Id. at 719, 733 N.W.2d at 190 . 31 Id. at 721 , 733 N.W.2d at 191 . - 481 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports JOHNSON V.

2023An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it. 4 Consequently, we do not address the plaintiffs’ second assignment of error and do not determine whether the district court erred by engaging in factfinding of disputed issues and usurped the jury’s duty as finders of fact. 2 Buttercase v. Davis, ante p. 1, 982 N.W.2d 240 (2022), modified on denial of rehearing ante p. 587, 985 N.W.2d 588 (2023). 3 Id.; In re Estate of Lakin, 310 Neb. 271 , 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021), modified on denial of rehearing 310 Neb. 389 , 966 N.W.2d 268

2023An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it. 4 Consequently, we do not address the plaintiffs’ second assignment of error and do not determine whether the district court erred by engaging in factfinding of disputed issues and usurped the jury’s duty as finders of fact. 2 Buttercase v. Davis, ante p. 1, 982 N.W.2d 240 (2022), modified on denial of rehearing ante p. 587, 985 N.W.2d 588 (2023). 3 Id.; In re Estate of Lakin, 310 Neb. 271 , 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021), modified on denial of rehearing 310 Neb. 389 , 966 N.W.2d 268

2023An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it. 4 Consequently, we do not address the plaintiffs’ second assignment of error and do not determine whether the district court erred by engaging in factfinding of disputed issues and usurped the jury’s duty as finders of fact. 2 Buttercase v. Davis, ante p. 1, 982 N.W.2d 240 (2022), modified on denial of rehearing ante p. 587, 985 N.W.2d 588 (2023). 3 Id.; In re Estate of Lakin, 310 Neb. 271 , 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021), modified on denial of rehearing 310 Neb. 389 , 966 N.W.2d 268

2023An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it. 4 Consequently, we do not address the plaintiffs’ second assignment of error and do not determine whether the district court erred by engaging in factfinding of disputed issues and usurped the jury’s duty as finders of fact. 2 Buttercase v. Davis, ante p. 1, 982 N.W.2d 240 (2022), modified on denial of rehearing ante p. 587, 985 N.W.2d 588 (2023). 3 Id.; In re Estate of Lakin, 310 Neb. 271 , 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021), modified on denial of rehearing 310 Neb. 389 , 966 N.W.2d 268

2023An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it. 4 Consequently, we do not address the plaintiffs’ second assignment of error and do not determine whether the district court erred by engaging in factfinding of disputed issues and usurped the jury’s duty as finders of fact. 2 Buttercase v. Davis, ante p. 1, 982 N.W.2d 240 (2022), modified on denial of rehearing ante p. 587, 985 N.W.2d 588 (2023). 3 Id.; In re Estate of Lakin, 310 Neb. 271 , 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021), modified on denial of rehearing 310 Neb. 389 , 966 N.W.2d 268

2023ESTATE OF BECKER Cite as 313 Neb. 818 Circumstantial Evidence in Civil Cases We have been less than meticulous in our language regard- ing a plaintiff’s ability to meet its burden of proof with cir- cumstantial evidence generally, as it relates to the element of causation specifically, and particularly when compared with the State’s burden of proof in criminal cases. 5 For example, the defendants in this case rely on propositions of law from Herrera v. Fleming Cos., 6 which provide: An allegation of negligence is insufficient where the finder of fact must guess at the cause of the accident. .

2023An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it. 4 Consequently, we do not address the plaintiffs’ second assignment of error and do not determine whether the district court erred by engaging in factfinding of disputed issues and usurped the jury’s duty as finders of fact. 2 Buttercase v. Davis, ante p. 1, 982 N.W.2d 240 (2022), modified on denial of rehearing ante p. 587, 985 N.W.2d 588 (2023). 3 Id.; In re Estate of Lakin, 310 Neb. 271 , 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021), modified on denial of rehearing 310 Neb. 389 , 966 N.W.2d 268

2023An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it. 4 Consequently, we do not address the plaintiffs’ second assignment of error and do not determine whether the district court erred by engaging in factfinding of disputed issues and usurped the jury’s duty as finders of fact. 2 Buttercase v. Davis, ante p. 1, 982 N.W.2d 240 (2022), modified on denial of rehearing ante p. 587, 985 N.W.2d 588 (2023). 3 Id.; In re Estate of Lakin, 310 Neb. 271 , 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021), modified on denial of rehearing 310 Neb. 389 , 966 N.W.2d 268

2023An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it. 4 Consequently, we do not address the plaintiffs’ second assignment of error and do not determine whether the district court erred by engaging in factfinding of disputed issues and usurped the jury’s duty as finders of fact. 2 Buttercase v. Davis, ante p. 1, 982 N.W.2d 240 (2022), modified on denial of rehearing ante p. 587, 985 N.W.2d 588 (2023). 3 Id.; In re Estate of Lakin, 310 Neb. 271 , 965 N.W.2d 365 (2021), modified on denial of rehearing 310 Neb. 389 , 966 N.W.2d 268

2022MATTHEWS REVOCABLE TRUST Cite as 312 Neb. 381 property; hence, the Synod’s second assignment of error is also without merit.

2021Before doing so, we first note that Sailors’ motion for absolute discharge actually stated: “[T]he State did not bring - 896 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 29 Nebraska Appellate Reports STATE v. SAILORS Cite as 29 Neb.

2020The Russos’ second assignment of error argues that the county court misinterpreted Nielsen’s testimony in finding that Cook was competent at times relevant to this case. - 642 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 28 Nebraska Appellate Reports IN RE TRUST OF COOK Cite as 28 Neb.

2019Because an appellate court will not consider an issue on appeal that was not passed upon by the 26 Wanha, supra note 3 . 27 Nye v. Fire Group Partnership, 265 Neb. 438 , 657 N.W.2d 220 (2003); Wanha, supra note 3 . - 798 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports SIEDLIK v. NISSEN Cite as 303 Neb. 784 trial court,28 we do not address the Siedliks’ contention that the court erred in failing to sustain a claim for the boundary line by acquiescence.

2019Because an appellate court will not consider an issue on appeal that was not passed upon by the 26 Wanha, supra note 3 . 27 Nye v. Fire Group Partnership, 265 Neb. 438 , 657 N.W.2d 220 (2003); Wanha, supra note 3 . - 798 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports SIEDLIK v. NISSEN Cite as 303 Neb. 784 trial court,28 we do not address the Siedliks’ contention that the court erred in failing to sustain a claim for the boundary line by acquiescence.

2019Because an appellate court will not consider an issue on appeal that was not passed upon by the 26 Wanha, supra note 3 . 27 Nye v. Fire Group Partnership, 265 Neb. 438 , 657 N.W.2d 220 (2003); Wanha, supra note 3 . - 798 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 303 Nebraska R eports SIEDLIK v. NISSEN Cite as 303 Neb. 784 trial court,28 we do not address the Siedliks’ contention that the court erred in failing to sustain a claim for the boundary line by acquiescence.

2016We specifically rejected such an 13 Pettis v. Lozier, 217 Neb. 191, 196 , 349 N.W.2d 372, 375-76 (1984). - 122 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports POULLOS v. PINE CREST HOMES Cite as 293 Neb. 115 argument in Wanha v. Long,14 reasoning that “‘platted land is no less subject to adverse possession than unplatted land.

2005Johnsen relies on our decision in Gausman v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 246 Neb. 677 , 522 N.W.2d 417 (1994).

2005Johnsen relies on our decision in Gausman v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 246 Neb. 677 , 522 N.W.2d 417 (1994).

2004Id. at 451 , 384 N.W.2d at 298 .

2004Id. at 451 , 384 N.W.2d at 298 .

1997Ethanair Corp. v. Thompson, ante p. 245, 561 N.W.2d 225 (1997); Kreus v. Stiles Service Ctr., 250 Neb. 526 , 550 N.W.2d 320 (1996).

1997Ethanair Corp. v. Thompson, ante p. 245, 561 N.W.2d 225 (1997); Kreus v. Stiles Service Ctr., 250 Neb. 526 , 550 N.W.2d 320 (1996).

1997Ethanair Corp. v. Thompson, ante p. 245, 561 N.W.2d 225 (1997); Kreus v. Stiles Service Ctr., 250 Neb. 526 , 550 N.W.2d 320 (1996).

1996Id. at 640 , 471 N.W.2d at 766 .