abuse of discretion standard in Nebraska

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

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

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

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

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.

2025State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 , 861 N.W.2d 367 (2015). (d) Analysis Ramos assigns that the district court erred in denying his motion to transport witnesses and his alternative motion to present their statements via the residual hearsay exception.

2025State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 , 861 N.W.2d 367 (2015). (d) Analysis Ramos assigns that the district court erred in denying his motion to transport witnesses and his alternative motion to present their statements via the residual hearsay exception.

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).

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.”. ..

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.

2026It would not be unusual for an appellate court to employ some reweighing language in an opinion reviewing a juvenile court’s transfer ruling because in such cases, the appellate court is required to review the juvenile court’s decision “de novo on the record for an abuse of discretion,” 59 and under such a standard of review, the appellate court “do[es] not defer to the findings of the trial judge in determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, but, rather, make[s its] own appraisal of the record to determine whether 56 Brief for appellant in support of petition for further revie

2026See, e.g., State v. Schmaltz, 304 Neb. 74 , 933 N.W.2d 435 (2019) (decisions regarding motions for mistrial due to alleged prosecutorial 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).

2026See, e.g., State v. Schmaltz, 304 Neb. 74 , 933 N.W.2d 435 (2019) (decisions regarding motions for mistrial due to alleged prosecutorial 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).

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.

2021Suffice it to say that the trial court was not swayed by Streck’s stated need for installment payments. 39 See, e.g., Matter of Carolina Gardens v. Menowitz, 238 A.D.2d 189 , 655 N.Y.S.2d 536 (1997). - 894 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports WAYNE L. RYAN REVOCABLE TRUST v. RYAN The South Dakota Supreme Court interpreted a statute similar to § 21-20,166(5)(a) and determined that the language permits 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 deter

2021Suffice it to say that the trial court was not swayed by Streck’s stated need for installment payments. 39 See, e.g., Matter of Carolina Gardens v. Menowitz, 238 A.D.2d 189 , 655 N.Y.S.2d 536 (1997). - 894 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports WAYNE L. RYAN REVOCABLE TRUST v. RYAN The South Dakota Supreme Court interpreted a statute similar to § 21-20,166(5)(a) and determined that the language permits 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 deter

2020State v. Valdez, 305 Neb. 441 , 940 N.W.2d 840 (2020). [3,4] The State cites State v. Johnson, 287 Neb. 190 , 842 N.W.2d 63 (2014), as support for applying an abuse of discretion standard of review for an appellate court to use when reviewing whether a trial court erred in finding sufficient evidence to terminate an individual from a drug court program. - 677 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 28 Nebraska Appellate Reports STATE v. SEAMAN Although Johnson involved a probation revocation proceeding, we agree that an abuse of discretion standard is equally applicable when reviewing termi

2020State v. Valdez, 305 Neb. 441 , 940 N.W.2d 840 (2020). [3,4] The State cites State v. Johnson, 287 Neb. 190 , 842 N.W.2d 63 (2014), as support for applying an abuse of discretion standard of review for an appellate court to use when reviewing whether a trial court erred in finding sufficient evidence to terminate an individual from a drug court program. - 677 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 28 Nebraska Appellate Reports STATE v. SEAMAN Although Johnson involved a probation revocation proceeding, we agree that an abuse of discretion standard is equally applicable when reviewing termi

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.