abuse of discretion standard in Nebraska

2026State v. Garcia, 318 Neb. 228 , 14 N.W.3d 525 (2024).

2026State v. Garcia, 318 Neb. 228 , 14 N.W.3d 525 (2024).

2025State v. Boppre, 315 Neb. 203 , 995 N.W.2d 28 (2023).

2025State v. Boppre, 315 Neb. 203 , 995 N.W.2d 28 (2023).

2003See, e.g., In re Interest of Brandy M. et al., 250 Neb. 510 , 550 N.W.2d 17 (1996) (prompt adjudication determinations are reviewed de novo to determine whether there has been abuse of discretion); In re Interest of D.D.P., 235 Neb. 864 , 458 N.W.2d 193 (1990) (it is within trial court’s discretion whether or not to permit child to be present at adjudication hearing in § 43-247(3)(a) proceeding).

2003See, e.g., In re Interest of Brandy M. et al., 250 Neb. 510 , 550 N.W.2d 17 (1996) (prompt adjudication determinations are reviewed de novo to determine whether there has been abuse of discretion); In re Interest of D.D.P., 235 Neb. 864 , 458 N.W.2d 193 (1990) (it is within trial court’s discretion whether or not to permit child to be present at adjudication hearing in § 43-247(3)(a) proceeding).

1992The court adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s position that “an appellate court should apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing all aspects of a federal district court’s determination of sanctions.” Id. at 914-15 , 468 N.W.2d at 129 , citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 , 110 S. Ct. 2447 , 110 L.

1992The court adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s position that “an appellate court should apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing all aspects of a federal district court’s determination of sanctions.” Id. at 914-15 , 468 N.W.2d at 129 , citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 , 110 S. Ct. 2447 , 110 L.

2025RAMOS Cite as 319 Neb. 511 leading questions, he spent his second interview complaining about the prison, and he spoke little about anything relevant to Ramos’ case. (b) Assignments of Error Ramos assigns that the district court erred in (1) failing to order DCS to transport witnesses material to his defense and (2) denying his request to present those witnesses’ statements through the residual hearsay exception. (c) Standard of Review [17] Because of the factors a trial court must weigh in deciding whether to admit evidence under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court applies an a

2025RAMOS Cite as 319 Neb. 511 leading questions, he spent his second interview complaining about the prison, and he spoke little about anything relevant to Ramos’ case. (b) Assignments of Error Ramos assigns that the district court erred in (1) failing to order DCS to transport witnesses material to his defense and (2) denying his request to present those witnesses’ statements through the residual hearsay exception. (c) Standard of Review [17] Because of the factors a trial court must weigh in deciding whether to admit evidence under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court applies an a

2021Stone Land argues that we should review this matter independently of the determination reached by the district court. [1,2] Although the denial of a motion to alter or amend the judgment is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion, see, e.g., State v. Robertson, 294 Neb. 29 , 881 N.W.2d 864 (2016), Stone Land seeks review of a jurisdictional determination by the district court, see, e.g., Kovar v. Habrock, 261 Neb. 337 , 622 N.W.2d 688 (2001) (district court lacks jurisdiction over action after failure to serve defendant pursuant to § 25-217).

2021Stone Land argues that we should review this matter independently of the determination reached by the district court. [1,2] Although the denial of a motion to alter or amend the judgment is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion, see, e.g., State v. Robertson, 294 Neb. 29 , 881 N.W.2d 864 (2016), Stone Land seeks review of a jurisdictional determination by the district court, see, e.g., Kovar v. Habrock, 261 Neb. 337 , 622 N.W.2d 688 (2001) (district court lacks jurisdiction over action after failure to serve defendant pursuant to § 25-217).

2021Stone Land argues that we should review this matter independently of the determination reached by the district court. [1,2] Although the denial of a motion to alter or amend the judgment is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion, see, e.g., State v. Robertson, 294 Neb. 29 , 881 N.W.2d 864 (2016), Stone Land seeks review of a jurisdictional determination by the district court, see, e.g., Kovar v. Habrock, 261 Neb. 337 , 622 N.W.2d 688 (2001) (district court lacks jurisdiction over action after failure to serve defendant pursuant to § 25-217).

2021Stone Land argues that we should review this matter independently of the determination reached by the district court. [1,2] Although the denial of a motion to alter or amend the judgment is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion, see, e.g., State v. Robertson, 294 Neb. 29 , 881 N.W.2d 864 (2016), Stone Land seeks review of a jurisdictional determination by the district court, see, e.g., Kovar v. Habrock, 261 Neb. 337 , 622 N.W.2d 688 (2001) (district court lacks jurisdiction over action after failure to serve defendant pursuant to § 25-217).

2021HBE contends that because Stone Land - 973 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports STONE LAND & LIVESTOCK CO. v. HBE Cite as 309 Neb. 970 seeks review of the district court’s order denying its motion to reinstate the case, which was a motion to alter or amend the judgment, an abuse of discretion standard applies.

2021HBE contends that because Stone Land - 973 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports STONE LAND & LIVESTOCK CO. v. HBE Cite as 309 Neb. 970 seeks review of the district court’s order denying its motion to reinstate the case, which was a motion to alter or amend the judgment, an abuse of discretion standard applies.

2008In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Borowiak, 10 Neb.App. 22 , 624 N.W.2d 72 (2001).

2008In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Borowiak, 10 Neb.App. 22 , 624 N.W.2d 72 (2001).

2002That case, however, was decided before State v. Messersmith, 238 Neb. 924 , 473 N.W.2d 83 (1991), when the Nebraska Supreme Court clearly stated that the abuse of discretion standard applies only when discretion is a factor of admissibility.

2002That case, however, was decided before State v. Messersmith, 238 Neb. 924 , 473 N.W.2d 83 (1991), when the Nebraska Supreme Court clearly stated that the abuse of discretion standard applies only when discretion is a factor of admissibility.

1998The court further stated: Indeed, the abuse of discretion standard was found to be intertwined with that of excessiveness at least as early as 1954 in Taylor v. State, 159 Neb. 210 , 66 N.W.2d 514 (1954), wherein we wrote: “Contrary to defendant’s contention, we find nothing in the record before us which could lawfully sustain a conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion and thereby imposed an excessive sentence upon defendant.”. ..

1998The court further stated: Indeed, the abuse of discretion standard was found to be intertwined with that of excessiveness at least as early as 1954 in Taylor v. State, 159 Neb. 210 , 66 N.W.2d 514 (1954), wherein we wrote: “Contrary to defendant’s contention, we find nothing in the record before us which could lawfully sustain a conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion and thereby imposed an excessive sentence upon defendant.”. ..

2026See, e.g., State v. Schmaltz, 304 Neb. 74 , 933 N.W.2d 435 (2019) (decisions regarding motions for mistrial due to alleged pros- ecutorial misconduct are directed to discretion of trial court and will be upheld in absence of abuse of discretion); State v. McSwine, 292 Neb. 565 , 873 N.W.2d 405 (2016) (appellate court reviews motion for new trial on basis of prosecutorial misconduct for abuse of discretion by trial court).

2026Accord State v. Tyler P., 299 Neb. 959 , 911 N.W.2d 260 (2018). 17 See, e.g., State v. Aldana Cardenas, 314 Neb. 544 , 990 N.W.2d 915 (2023); Hunt, supra note 9 ; State v. Bluett, 295 Neb. 369 , 889 N.W.2d 83 (2016). 18 Brief for appellant in support of petition for further review at 5. 19 Supplemental brief for appellant in support of petition for further review at 2. 20 Id. 21 Stephen D., supra note 1, 2025 WL 1937019 at *9. 22 Brief for appellant in support of petition for further review at 6. 23 Id. - 922 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 320 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2026Accord State v. Tyler P., 299 Neb. 959 , 911 N.W.2d 260 (2018). 17 See, e.g., State v. Aldana Cardenas, 314 Neb. 544 , 990 N.W.2d 915 (2023); Hunt, supra note 9 ; State v. Bluett, 295 Neb. 369 , 889 N.W.2d 83 (2016). 18 Brief for appellant in support of petition for further review at 5. 19 Supplemental brief for appellant in support of petition for further review at 2. 20 Id. 21 Stephen D., supra note 1, 2025 WL 1937019 at *9. 22 Brief for appellant in support of petition for further review at 6. 23 Id. - 922 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 320 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2026DAMORE Cite as 320 Neb. 914 are not ultimately persuaded the Court of Appeals misstated or misapplied the abuse of discretion standard of review, we granted further review to address the issue.

2026Id. 8 In its analysis, the Court of Appeals elaborated on the abuse of discretion standard.

2024Donscheski v. Donscheski, 17 Neb.

2024In arguing that an abuse of discretion standard is required by § 21-168, the Boesharts rely heavily on Auerbach v. Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d 619 , 393 N.E.2d 994 , 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 (1979), an oft-cited decision of New York’s highest court regarding what courts may consider in reviewing an SLC’s determination as to the disposition of a derivative lawsuit.

2024In arguing that an abuse of discretion standard is required by § 21-168, the Boesharts rely heavily on Auerbach v. Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d 619 , 393 N.E.2d 994 , 419 N.Y.S.2d 920 (1979), an oft-cited decision of New York’s highest court regarding what courts may consider in reviewing an SLC’s determination as to the disposition of a derivative lawsuit.

2023Id.

2021State v. Soto, 11 Neb.

2021RYAN REVOCABLE TRUST v. RYAN Cite as 308 Neb. 851 The South Dakota Supreme Court interpreted a statute simi- lar to § 21-20,166(5)(a) and determined that the language per- mits a trial court discretion in requiring a lump-sum payment or installment payments. 40 The South Dakota court then employed an abuse of discretion standard of review to determine whether the trial court erred in ordering installment payments. 41 Here, the trial court found that Streck’s request was not in the interests of equity.

2018STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] When a jurisdictional question does not involve a factual dispute, determination of a jurisdictional issue is a matter of law which requires an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent from the trial court’s.1 [2] While a court’s decision to issue a stay in an action is generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard of 1 Hand Cut Steaks Acquisitions v. Lone Star Steakhouse, ante p. 705, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2018). - 824 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports BOYD v. COOK Cite as 298 Neb. 819 review,2 the decision whether to stay proc

2018When a case is filed in adult court, the adult court shall transfer it to juvenile court “unless a sound basis exists 5 Id., §§ 9 and 16. 6 Id., § 4. 7 In re Interest of Tyrone K., 295 Neb. 193 , 887 N.W.2d 489 (2016). 8 2017 Neb.

2018When a case is filed in adult court, the adult court shall transfer it to juvenile court “unless a sound basis exists 5 Id., §§ 9 and 16. 6 Id., § 4. 7 In re Interest of Tyrone K., 295 Neb. 193 , 887 N.W.2d 489 (2016). 8 2017 Neb.