law of the case doctrine in Nebraska

2022Section 45-103.02(1) authorizes the recovery of prejudgment interest on unliq- uidated claims when the statutory preconditions are met, 2 County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, 276 Neb. 520 , 755 N.W.2d 376 (2008). 3 Id. 4 Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280, 313-14 , 929 N.W.2d 40, 63 (2019). - 650 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports IN RE ESTATE OF ADELUNG Cite as 312 Neb. 647 § 45-103.02(2) authorizes the recovery of prejudgment interest on liquidated claims, and § 45-104 authorizes the recovery of prejudgment interest on four categories of contract-based claims without regar

2022Section 45-103.02(1) authorizes the recovery of prejudgment interest on unliq- uidated claims when the statutory preconditions are met, 2 County of Sarpy v. City of Gretna, 276 Neb. 520 , 755 N.W.2d 376 (2008). 3 Id. 4 Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280, 313-14 , 929 N.W.2d 40, 63 (2019). - 650 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports IN RE ESTATE OF ADELUNG Cite as 312 Neb. 647 § 45-103.02(2) authorizes the recovery of prejudgment interest on liquidated claims, and § 45-104 authorizes the recovery of prejudgment interest on four categories of contract-based claims without regar

2025In Spratt v. Crete Carrier Corp., 311 Neb. 262 , 277-78, 971 N.W.2d 335 , 346-47 (2022), the Nebraska Supreme Court stated: The law-of-the-case doctrine reflects the principle that an issue that has been litigated and decided in one stage of a case should not be relitigated at a later stage.

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

2023Accord, Money, supra note 60 (law-of-case doctrine will not apply when considerations of substantial justice suggest reexamination of issue is warranted, when materially and substantially different facts are presented, or when applicable law has changed); State v. Davlin, 272 Neb. 139 , 719 N.W.2d 243 (2006) (law-of-case doctrine will not preclude reconsideration of foundational challenge to expert’s testimony in second trial, where expert’s opinions varied from one trial to next and new legal standard for admissibility was adopted after first trial). 65 See, Price, supra note 61 ; Lavalleur,

2020State v. Merchant, 288 Neb. 439 , 848 N.W.2d 630 (2014).

1999Id.

1996Pendleton v. Pendleton, 247 Neb. 66 , 525 N.W.2d 22 (1994); Wicker v. Vogel, 246 Neb. 601 , 521 N.W.2d 907 (1994).

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

2015In re Estate of Stull, 261 Neb. 319 , 622 N.W.2d 886 (2001).

2015In re Estate of Stull, 261 Neb. 319 , 622 N.W.2d 886 (2001).

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

2023Accord, Money, supra note 60 (law-of-case doctrine will not apply when considerations of substantial justice suggest reexamination of issue is warranted, when materially and substantially different facts are presented, or when applicable law has changed); State v. Davlin, 272 Neb. 139 , 719 N.W.2d 243 (2006) (law-of-case doctrine will not preclude reconsideration of foundational challenge to expert’s testimony in second trial, where expert’s opinions varied from one trial to next and new legal standard for admissibility was adopted after first trial). 65 See, Price, supra note 61 ; Lavalleur,

2023Accord, Money, supra note 60 (law-of-case doctrine will not apply when considerations of substantial justice suggest reexamination of issue is warranted, when materially and substantially different facts are presented, or when applicable law has changed); State v. Davlin, 272 Neb. 139 , 719 N.W.2d 243 (2006) (law-of-case doctrine will not preclude reconsideration of foundational challenge to expert’s testimony in second trial, where expert’s opinions varied from one trial to next and new legal standard for admissibility was adopted after first trial). 65 See, Price, supra note 61 ; Lavalleur,

2020And, under the law-of-the-case doctrine, an appellate court’s holdings on issues presented to it conclusively settle all matters ruled upon, either expressly or by necessary implication. deNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost, 295 Neb. 912 , 893 N.W.2d 669 (2017).

2020And, under the law-of-the-case doctrine, an appellate court’s holdings on issues presented to it conclusively settle all matters ruled upon, either expressly or by necessary implication. deNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost, 295 Neb. 912 , 893 N.W.2d 669 (2017).

1998See, Latenser v. Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., 250 Neb. 789 , 553 N.W.2d 458 (1996); Pendleton v. Pendleton, 247 Neb. 66 , 525 N.W.2d 22 (1994).

1998See, Latenser v. Intercessors of the Lamb, Inc., 250 Neb. 789 , 553 N.W.2d 458 (1996); Pendleton v. Pendleton, 247 Neb. 66 , 525 N.W.2d 22 (1994).

2022Spratt’s request for modification arose in the same action as the origi- nal award. 53 Therefore, this court need only address whether the law-of-the-case doctrine precluded Spratt’s request. [9-11] The law-of-the-case doctrine reflects the principle that an issue that has been litigated and decided in one stage of a case should not be relitigated at a later stage. 54 The ­law-of-the-case doctrine promotes judicial efficiency and pro- tects parties’ settled expectations by preventing parties from 49 See Hara v. Reichert, 287 Neb. 577 , 843 N.W.2d 812 (2014). 50 See id. 51 See id. 52 See id. 53

2022Spratt’s request for modification arose in the same action as the origi- nal award. 53 Therefore, this court need only address whether the law-of-the-case doctrine precluded Spratt’s request. [9-11] The law-of-the-case doctrine reflects the principle that an issue that has been litigated and decided in one stage of a case should not be relitigated at a later stage. 54 The ­law-of-the-case doctrine promotes judicial efficiency and pro- tects parties’ settled expectations by preventing parties from 49 See Hara v. Reichert, 287 Neb. 577 , 843 N.W.2d 812 (2014). 50 See id. 51 See id. 52 See id. 53

2017Under the man- date branch of the law-of-the-case doctrine, a decision made at a previous stage of litigation, which could have been chal- lenged in the ensuing appeal but was not, becomes the law of the case; the parties are deemed to have waived the right to challenge that decision.22 But an issue is not considered waived if a party did not have both an opportunity and an incentive to raise it in a previous appeal.23 The Frosts had no incentive to raise those potential defenses in Frost I, because the trial court had entered summary judgment in their favor 19 Master Laboratories, Inc. v. Che

2017Under the man- date branch of the law-of-the-case doctrine, a decision made at a previous stage of litigation, which could have been chal- lenged in the ensuing appeal but was not, becomes the law of the case; the parties are deemed to have waived the right to challenge that decision.22 But an issue is not considered waived if a party did not have both an opportunity and an incentive to raise it in a previous appeal.23 The Frosts had no incentive to raise those potential defenses in Frost I, because the trial court had entered summary judgment in their favor 19 Master Laboratories, Inc. v. Che

2017We disagree for two reasons. 4 Fuhrman v. State, 265 Neb. 176 , 655 N.W.2d 866 (2003). 5 Hopkins v. Hopkins, 294 Neb. 417 , 883 N.W.2d 363 (2016). 6 Sickler v. Sickler, 293 Neb. 521 , 878 N.W.2d 549 (2016). - 64 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports JILL B. & TRAVIS B. v. STATE Cite as 297 Neb. 57 [4] First, the parents’ premise is wrong.

2016The law of the case doctrine reflects the principle that an issue that has been liti- gated and decided in one stage of a case should not be reliti- gated at a later stage.31 As we stated in Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kreikemeier,32 an order of contempt in a postjudgment proceeding to enforce a previous final judgment is a final order, because it affects substantial rights and is made upon 30 See Hossaini v. Vaelizadeh, supra note 1. 31 Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kreikemeier, supra note 2 . 32 Id. - 540 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports SICKLER v. SICKLER Cite as 293 Neb. 521

2015A court may judicially notice adjudicative facts, which are not subject to reasonable dispute, at any stage of the proceeding.8 In interwoven and interdependent cases, we can examine our own records and take judicial notice of the proceedings and 6 See, Schellhorn v. Schmieding, 288 Neb. 647 , 851 N.W.2d 67 (2014); Robertson v. Jacobs Cattle Co., 285 Neb. 859 , 830 N.W.2d 191 (2013). 7 Id. 8 Pennfield Oil Co. v. Winstrom, 276 Neb. 123 , 752 N.W.2d 588 (2008).

2015A court may judicially notice adjudicative facts, which are not subject to reasonable dispute, at any stage of the proceeding.8 In interwoven and interdependent cases, we can examine our own records and take judicial notice of the proceedings and 6 See, Schellhorn v. Schmieding, 288 Neb. 647 , 851 N.W.2d 67 (2014); Robertson v. Jacobs Cattle Co., 285 Neb. 859 , 830 N.W.2d 191 (2013). 7 Id. 8 Pennfield Oil Co. v. Winstrom, 276 Neb. 123 , 752 N.W.2d 588 (2008).

2006Hoiengs v. County of Adams, 254 Neb. 64 , 574 N.W.2d 498 (1998); In re Application of City of Lincoln, 243 Neb. 458 , 500 N.W.2d 183 (1993).

2006Hoiengs v. County of Adams, 254 Neb. 64 , 574 N.W.2d 498 (1998); In re Application of City of Lincoln, 243 Neb. 458 , 500 N.W.2d 183 (1993).

2004Tank v. Peterson, 228 Neb. 491 , 423 N.W.2d 752 (1988).

2004Tank v. Peterson, 228 Neb. 491 , 423 N.W.2d 752 (1988).

1998Carpenter v. Cullan, 254 Neb. 925 , 581 N.W.2d 72 (1998).

1998Carpenter v. Cullan, 254 Neb. 925 , 581 N.W.2d 72 (1998).

1997Pendleton v. Pendleton, 247 Neb. 66 , 525 N.W.2d 22 (1994); McKinstry v. County of Cass, 241 Neb. 444 , 488 N.W.2d 552 (1992); Tank v. Peterson, 228 Neb. 491 , 423 N.W.2d 752 (1988); Waite v. Carpenter, 3 Neb.

1996Wicker v. Vogel, 246 Neb. 601 , 521 N.W.2d 907 (1994); Waite v. Carpenter, 3 Neb.

2025GOYNES Cite as 318 Neb. 413 Goynes did not allege how our conclusion on direct appeal as to the admissibility of the printouts would have been dif- ferent from our holding that the cell phone and compact disc containing the data extracted from the cell phone were prop- erly admitted over trial counsel’s objections.

2025Under the law-of-the- case doctrine, an appellate court’s holdings on issues presented to it conclusively settle all matters ruled upon, either expressly or by necessary implication. 23 A motion for postconviction relief cannot be used to secure a further review of issues already litigated on direct appeal. 24 21 State v. Jaeger, supra note 3 . 22 See State v. Haynes, 299 Neb. 249 , 908 N.W.2d 40 (2018), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Allen, 301 Neb. 560 , 919 N.W.2d 500 (2018). 23 See 132 Ventures v. Active Spine Physical Therapy, ante p. 64, 13 N.W.3d 441 (2024). 24 See State v. Stel

2025Under the law-of-the- case doctrine, an appellate court’s holdings on issues presented to it conclusively settle all matters ruled upon, either expressly or by necessary implication. 23 A motion for postconviction relief cannot be used to secure a further review of issues already litigated on direct appeal. 24 21 State v. Jaeger, supra note 3 . 22 See State v. Haynes, 299 Neb. 249 , 908 N.W.2d 40 (2018), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Allen, 301 Neb. 560 , 919 N.W.2d 500 (2018). 23 See 132 Ventures v. Active Spine Physical Therapy, ante p. 64, 13 N.W.3d 441 (2024). 24 See State v. Stel

2025Under the law-of-the- case doctrine, an appellate court’s holdings on issues presented to it conclusively settle all matters ruled upon, either expressly or by necessary implication. 23 A motion for postconviction relief cannot be used to secure a further review of issues already litigated on direct appeal. 24 21 State v. Jaeger, supra note 3 . 22 See State v. Haynes, 299 Neb. 249 , 908 N.W.2d 40 (2018), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Allen, 301 Neb. 560 , 919 N.W.2d 500 (2018). 23 See 132 Ventures v. Active Spine Physical Therapy, ante p. 64, 13 N.W.3d 441 (2024). 24 See State v. Stel

2025Under the law-of-the- case doctrine, an appellate court’s holdings on issues presented to it conclusively settle all matters ruled upon, either expressly or by necessary implication. 23 A motion for postconviction relief cannot be used to secure a further review of issues already litigated on direct appeal. 24 21 State v. Jaeger, supra note 3 . 22 See State v. Haynes, 299 Neb. 249 , 908 N.W.2d 40 (2018), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Allen, 301 Neb. 560 , 919 N.W.2d 500 (2018). 23 See 132 Ventures v. Active Spine Physical Therapy, ante p. 64, 13 N.W.3d 441 (2024). 24 See State v. Stel

2025Id.

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

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