evidence adduced hearing in Nebraska

1961Co., 49 Neb. 537 , 68 N. W. 929 , we held that: “Where a foreign corporation has business transactions in this state with citizens and residents of the state, out of which arise accounts or claims against the corporation, such accounts or claims may be enforced in the courts of this state if jurisdiction can be obtained by legal service of process.” In discussing this matter we said: “* * * it may be said that the company, plaintiff in error, was an Iowa corporation; that the evidence adduced at the hearing on the objections to the jurisdiction of the court, although conflicting, was amply suf

1961Co., 49 Neb. 537 , 68 N. W. 929 , we held that: “Where a foreign corporation has business transactions in this state with citizens and residents of the state, out of which arise accounts or claims against the corporation, such accounts or claims may be enforced in the courts of this state if jurisdiction can be obtained by legal service of process.” In discussing this matter we said: “* * * it may be said that the company, plaintiff in error, was an Iowa corporation; that the evidence adduced at the hearing on the objections to the jurisdiction of the court, although conflicting, was amply suf

2021We have recently explained that evidence of good cause is properly presented at the 12 See id. 13 Id. 14 Id. 15 Id. - 525 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. GNANAPRAKASAM Cite as 310 Neb. 519 hearing on the motion for absolute discharge and need not be articulated at the time of the court’s sua sponte order delay- ing trial. 16 (b) Order on Motion for Discharge Gnanaprakasam alternatively asserted that the court’s order was not supported by the evidence adduced at the hearing.

1996In In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 , 470 N.W.2d 780 (1991), the Supreme Court noted that what saved the juvenile court’s jurisdiction in that case was that the evidence adduced at a hearing held 14 days later supported what was done at the earlier hearing.

1996In In re Interest of R.G., 238 Neb. 405 , 470 N.W.2d 780 (1991), the Supreme Court noted that what saved the juvenile court’s jurisdiction in that case was that the evidence adduced at a hearing held 14 days later supported what was done at the earlier hearing.

1996In that case, we held: “An easement by implication from former use arises only where [1] the use giving rise to the easement was in existence at the time of the conveyance subdividing the *425 property; [2] the use has been so long continued and so obvious as to show that it was meant to be permanent; and [3] the easement is necessary for the proper and reasonable enjoyment of the dominant tract.” Id. at 405, 550 N.W.2d at 894 , quoting Hengen v. Hengen, 211 Neb. 276 , 318 N.W.2d 269 (1982).

1996In that case, we held: “An easement by implication from former use arises only where [1] the use giving rise to the easement was in existence at the time of the conveyance subdividing the *425 property; [2] the use has been so long continued and so obvious as to show that it was meant to be permanent; and [3] the easement is necessary for the proper and reasonable enjoyment of the dominant tract.” Id. at 405, 550 N.W.2d at 894 , quoting Hengen v. Hengen, 211 Neb. 276 , 318 N.W.2d 269 (1982).

1996ANALYSIS In its order, the district court states, “Upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, a review of the file, arguments of counsel and briefs submitted, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the [Kaufmans] are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” This court recently addressed the elements required to create an implied easement from former use in Hillary Corp. v. United States Cold Storage, ante p. 397, 550 N.W.2d 889 (1996).

1996In that case, we held: “An easement by implication from former use arises only where [1] the use giving rise to the easement was in existence at the time of the conveyance subdividing the *425 property; [2] the use has been so long continued and so obvious as to show that it was meant to be permanent; and [3] the easement is necessary for the proper and reasonable enjoyment of the dominant tract.” Id. at 405, 550 N.W.2d at 894 , quoting Hengen v. Hengen, 211 Neb. 276 , 318 N.W.2d 269 (1982).

1992The court later noted that the evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion, standing alone, “[would] not support a finding in favor of the defendant on this motion.” The record in this case discloses none of the yellow journalism, investigatorial bias, or prosecutorial misconduct evident in Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 , 86 S. Ct. 1507 , 16 L.

1992The court later noted that the evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion, standing alone, “[would] not support a finding in favor of the defendant on this motion.” The record in this case discloses none of the yellow journalism, investigatorial bias, or prosecutorial misconduct evident in Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 , 86 S. Ct. 1507 , 16 L.

1959As we said in Allen v. Miller, 142 Neb. 469 , 6 N. W. 2d 594 , by quoting from 22 R.

1959As we said in Allen v. Miller, 142 Neb. 469 , 6 N. W. 2d 594 , by quoting from 22 R.

1898(Vought v. Foxworthy, 38 Neb. 790 ; Smith v. Foxworthy, 39 Neb. 214 ; Ecklund v. Willis, 42 Neb. 737 ; Burkett v. Clarke, 46 Neb. 466 ; Kearney Land & Investment Co. v. Aspinwall, 45 Neb. 601 ; Overall v. McShane, 49 Neb. 64 .) The objection that the appraisement was so low as to constitute a fraud upon the rights of the defendants is without merit, since the evidence adduced on the hearing, if any, has not been preserved by a bill of exceptions.

1898(Vought v. Foxworthy, 38 Neb. 790 ; Smith v. Foxworthy, 39 Neb. 214 ; Ecklund v. Willis, 42 Neb. 737 ; Burkett v. Clarke, 46 Neb. 466 ; Kearney Land & Investment Co. v. Aspinwall, 45 Neb. 601 ; Overall v. McShane, 49 Neb. 64 .) The objection that the appraisement was so low as to constitute a fraud upon the rights of the defendants is without merit, since the evidence adduced on the hearing, if any, has not been preserved by a bill of exceptions.

1898(Vought v. Foxworthy, 38 Neb. 790 ; Smith v. Foxworthy, 39 Neb. 214 ; Ecklund v. Willis, 42 Neb. 737 ; Burkett v. Clarke, 46 Neb. 466 ; Kearney Land & Investment Co. v. Aspinwall, 45 Neb. 601 ; Overall v. McShane, 49 Neb. 64 .) The objection that the appraisement was so low as to constitute a fraud upon the rights of the defendants is without merit, since the evidence adduced on the hearing, if any, has not been preserved by a bill of exceptions.

1898(Vought v. Foxworthy, 38 Neb. 790 ; Smith v. Foxworthy, 39 Neb. 214 ; Ecklund v. Willis, 42 Neb. 737 ; Burkett v. Clarke, 46 Neb. 466 ; Kearney Land & Investment Co. v. Aspinwall, 45 Neb. 601 ; Overall v. McShane, 49 Neb. 64 .) The objection that the appraisement was so low as to constitute a fraud upon the rights of the defendants is without merit, since the evidence adduced on the hearing, if any, has not been preserved by a bill of exceptions.

1898(Vought v. Foxworthy, 38 Neb. 790 ; Smith v. Foxworthy, 39 Neb. 214 ; Ecklund v. Willis, 42 Neb. 737 ; Burkett v. Clarke, 46 Neb. 466 ; Kearney Land & Investment Co. v. Aspinwall, 45 Neb. 601 ; Overall v. McShane, 49 Neb. 64 .) The objection that the appraisement was so low as to constitute a fraud upon the rights of the defendants is without merit, since the evidence adduced on the hearing, if any, has not been preserved by a bill of exceptions.

1898(Vought v. Foxworthy, 38 Neb. 790 ; Smith v. Foxworthy, 39 Neb. 214 ; Ecklund v. Willis, 42 Neb. 737 ; Burkett v. Clarke, 46 Neb. 466 ; Kearney Land & Investment Co. v. Aspinwall, 45 Neb. 601 ; Overall v. McShane, 49 Neb. 64 .) The objection that the appraisement was so low as to constitute a fraud upon the rights of the defendants is without merit, since the evidence adduced on the hearing, if any, has not been preserved by a bill of exceptions.