supplemental brief (Nebraska) · Go Syfert
← Nebraska issues

supplemental brief in Nebraska

51 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1930–2026 16 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (12)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Johnsongreen
neb · 2005 · cited in 2 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023See, also, State v. Johnson, 269 Neb. 507 , 695 N.W.2d 165 (2005); State v. Hert, 192 Neb. 751 , 224 N.W.2d 188 (1974). 14 See, State v. Grant, 293 Neb. 163 , 876 N.W.2d 639 (2016); State v. Erpelding, 292 Neb. 351 , 874 N.W.2d 265 (2015). 15 Supplemental brief for appellant at 18. - 802 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2023See, also, State v. Johnson, 269 Neb. 507 , 695 N.W.2d 165 (2005); State v. Hert, 192 Neb. 751 , 224 N.W.2d 188 (1974). 14 See, State v. Grant, 293 Neb. 163 , 876 N.W.2d 639 (2016); State v. Erpelding, 292 Neb. 351 , 874 N.W.2d 265 (2015). 15 Supplemental brief for appellant at 18. - 802 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

22
Cerny v. Todco Barricade Co.green
neb · 2007 · cited in 2 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2008–2022
2 sentences

2022To that end, our cases hold that “a ‘final order’ is a prerequisite to an appellate court’s obtaining jurisdiction of an appeal initiated pursuant to § 25-1315(1).” 36 Thus, it is a well-settled principle in our § 25-1315 jurisprudence that to be appealable, an order must satisfy the final order requirements of § 25-1902 and, where implicated, § 25-1315(1). 37 33 Supplemental brief for appellant at 7. 34 Cerny, supra note 18 , 273 Neb. at 805 , 733 N.W.2d at 884 , citing Bailey v. Lund-Ross Constructors Co., 265 Neb. 539 , 657 N.W.2d 916 (2003). 35 See Cerny, supra note 18 , 273 Neb. at 808 ,

2022To that end, our cases hold that “a ‘final order’ is a prerequisite to an appellate court’s obtaining jurisdiction of an appeal initiated pursuant to § 25-1315(1).” 36 Thus, it is a well-settled principle in our § 25-1315 jurisprudence that to be appealable, an order must satisfy the final order requirements of § 25-1902 and, where implicated, § 25-1315(1). 37 33 Supplemental brief for appellant at 7. 34 Cerny, supra note 18 , 273 Neb. at 805 , 733 N.W.2d at 884 , citing Bailey v. Lund-Ross Constructors Co., 265 Neb. 539 , 657 N.W.2d 916 (2003). 35 See Cerny, supra note 18 , 273 Neb. at 808 ,

22
State v. Tyler P.green
neb · 2018 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
2 sentences

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.

11
State v. Aldana Cardenasgreen
neb · 2023 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
2 sentences

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.

11
Bernstien v. Browngreen
neb · 1888 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026Regarding the concept of judicial discretion, Pettegrew noted that the term itself “‘denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule,’” 28 but we 24 Supplemental brief for appellant in support of petition for further review at 13-14. 25 Compare, e.g., Aldana Cardenas, supra note 17 , 314 Neb. at 549 , 990 N.W.2d at 921 (“[a]n abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence”), and Hunt, supra note 9 (same), with Jeremiah T., supra note 2, 319 Neb. at 144

11
Williams v. Stategreen
neb · 2021 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024They note that Moser described Doe as an “outlier” 76 in Nebraska’s sovereign immunity jurisprudence and that Edwards and Williams gener- ally echoed that characterization. 77 The siblings infer, from our references to Doe as an outlier, that Koepf must “be an example of the proper construction the Moser [c]ourt sought to reinstate.” 78 They are incorrect. 74 See, Dion, supra note 15 ; Williams, supra note 14 ; Edwards, supra note 13 , Moser, supra note 4 ; Koepf, supra note 3 . 75 Supplemental brief for appellees at 11. 76 Moser, supra note 4 , 307 Neb. at 28 , 948 N.W.2d at 202 . 77 See, Edw

2024They note that Moser described Doe as an “outlier” 76 in Nebraska’s sovereign immunity jurisprudence and that Edwards and Williams gener- ally echoed that characterization. 77 The siblings infer, from our references to Doe as an outlier, that Koepf must “be an example of the proper construction the Moser [c]ourt sought to reinstate.” 78 They are incorrect. 74 See, Dion, supra note 15 ; Williams, supra note 14 ; Edwards, supra note 13 , Moser, supra note 4 ; Koepf, supra note 3 . 75 Supplemental brief for appellees at 11. 76 Moser, supra note 4 , 307 Neb. at 28 , 948 N.W.2d at 202 . 77 See, Edw

11
Edwards v. Douglas Countygreen
neb · 2021 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024They note that Moser described Doe as an “outlier” 76 in Nebraska’s sovereign immunity jurisprudence and that Edwards and Williams gener- ally echoed that characterization. 77 The siblings infer, from our references to Doe as an outlier, that Koepf must “be an example of the proper construction the Moser [c]ourt sought to reinstate.” 78 They are incorrect. 74 See, Dion, supra note 15 ; Williams, supra note 14 ; Edwards, supra note 13 , Moser, supra note 4 ; Koepf, supra note 3 . 75 Supplemental brief for appellees at 11. 76 Moser, supra note 4 , 307 Neb. at 28 , 948 N.W.2d at 202 . 77 See, Edw

2024They note that Moser described Doe as an “outlier” 76 in Nebraska’s sovereign immunity jurisprudence and that Edwards and Williams gener- ally echoed that characterization. 77 The siblings infer, from our references to Doe as an outlier, that Koepf must “be an example of the proper construction the Moser [c]ourt sought to reinstate.” 78 They are incorrect. 74 See, Dion, supra note 15 ; Williams, supra note 14 ; Edwards, supra note 13 , Moser, supra note 4 ; Koepf, supra note 3 . 75 Supplemental brief for appellees at 11. 76 Moser, supra note 4 , 307 Neb. at 28 , 948 N.W.2d at 202 . 77 See, Edw

11
Springfield Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Boswellgreen
fladistctapp · 1964 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
11
Clark v. Scheels All Sportsgreen
neb · 2023 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
11
Mann v. Manngreen
neb · 2022 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
11
Tyrrell v. Frakesgreen
neb · 2021 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
11
City of Lincoln v. Central Platte Natural Resources Districtgreen
neb · 2002 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (68)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Hubbard green
neb · 2004
2 sentences

2019The State’s supplemental brief “adhere[d] to its initial position.”20 However, it offered an “alternative interpretation”21 suggesting that the placement of the intent to restore clause after the penalty language could mean that it was “fairly 18 State v. Hubbard, 267 Neb. 316 , 673 N.W.2d 567 (2004). 19 Brief for appellee at 17. 20 Supplemental brief for appellee at 1. 21 Id. - 813 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. MANN Cite as 302 Neb. 804 characterized as an affirmative defense.”22 But the State then argued that assuming that intent to restore was an es

2019The State’s supplemental brief “adhere[d] to its initial position.”20 However, it offered an “alternative interpretation”21 suggesting that the placement of the intent to restore clause after the penalty language could mean that it was “fairly 18 State v. Hubbard, 267 Neb. 316 , 673 N.W.2d 567 (2004). 19 Brief for appellee at 17. 20 Supplemental brief for appellee at 1. 21 Id. - 813 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. MANN Cite as 302 Neb. 804 characterized as an affirmative defense.”22 But the State then argued that assuming that intent to restore was an es

32019–2019
Regents of University of California v. Doe green
scotus · 1997
2 sentences

2019Rhiley , supra note 19; Henderson , supra note 19. 30 Supplemental brief for appellant at 309-10. 31 Doe v. Board of Regents , 280 Neb. 492 , 788 N.W.2d 264 (2010), overruled on other grounds, Davis , supra note 19. 32 Supplemental brief for appellant at 308-09. 33 Id. 34 Doe, supra note 31, 280 Neb. at 511-12 , 788 N.W.2d at 282 , quoting Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe , 519 U.S. 425 , 117 S.Ct. 900 , 137 L.Ed.2d 55 (1997). 35 State ex rel.

2019Rhiley , supra note 19; Henderson , supra note 19. 30 Supplemental brief for appellant at 309-10. 31 Doe v. Board of Regents , 280 Neb. 492 , 788 N.W.2d 264 (2010), overruled on other grounds, Davis , supra note 19. 32 Supplemental brief for appellant at 308-09. 33 Id. 34 Doe, supra note 31, 280 Neb. at 511-12 , 788 N.W.2d at 282 , quoting Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Doe , 519 U.S. 425 , 117 S.Ct. 900 , 137 L.Ed.2d 55 (1997). 35 State ex rel.

32019–2019
State v. Hert green
neb · 1974
2 sentences

2023See, also, State v. Johnson, 269 Neb. 507 , 695 N.W.2d 165 (2005); State v. Hert, 192 Neb. 751 , 224 N.W.2d 188 (1974). 14 See, State v. Grant, 293 Neb. 163 , 876 N.W.2d 639 (2016); State v. Erpelding, 292 Neb. 351 , 874 N.W.2d 265 (2015). 15 Supplemental brief for appellant at 18. - 802 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2023See, also, State v. Johnson, 269 Neb. 507 , 695 N.W.2d 165 (2005); State v. Hert, 192 Neb. 751 , 224 N.W.2d 188 (1974). 14 See, State v. Grant, 293 Neb. 163 , 876 N.W.2d 639 (2016); State v. Erpelding, 292 Neb. 351 , 874 N.W.2d 265 (2015). 15 Supplemental brief for appellant at 18. - 802 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

22023–2023
State v. Brennauer green
neb · 2023
2 sentences

2023BRENNAUER Cite as 314 Neb. 782 The State argues that sufficient evidence supports the jury’s rejection of Brennauer’s insanity defense because “even though the experts agreed that Brennauer had a mental dis- ease at the time of the offenses,” they did not agree as to whether Brennauer suffered a lack of capacity. 16 The State contends that reversal is unnecessary because the evidence undisputedly showed that Brennauer’s “mental condition” at the time of the offense was a temporary condition proximately caused by his intoxication. 17 As it states, “[T]he trial evidence was undisputed that over

2023BRENNAUER Cite as 314 Neb. 782 substances, and less than three weeks after the offense, having been deprived of his use of substances, Brennauer was no longer in a delusional psychiatric state. 19 However, if taken to its logical conclusion, the essence of the State’s argument is that the undisputed evidence shows Brennauer was not entitled to an instruction on the insanity defense.

22023–2023
State v. Erpelding green
neb · 2015
2 sentences

2023See, also, State v. Johnson, 269 Neb. 507 , 695 N.W.2d 165 (2005); State v. Hert, 192 Neb. 751 , 224 N.W.2d 188 (1974). 14 See, State v. Grant, 293 Neb. 163 , 876 N.W.2d 639 (2016); State v. Erpelding, 292 Neb. 351 , 874 N.W.2d 265 (2015). 15 Supplemental brief for appellant at 18. - 802 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2023See, also, State v. Johnson, 269 Neb. 507 , 695 N.W.2d 165 (2005); State v. Hert, 192 Neb. 751 , 224 N.W.2d 188 (1974). 14 See, State v. Grant, 293 Neb. 163 , 876 N.W.2d 639 (2016); State v. Erpelding, 292 Neb. 351 , 874 N.W.2d 265 (2015). 15 Supplemental brief for appellant at 18. - 802 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

22023–2023
State v. Grant green
neb · 2016
2 sentences

2023See, also, State v. Johnson, 269 Neb. 507 , 695 N.W.2d 165 (2005); State v. Hert, 192 Neb. 751 , 224 N.W.2d 188 (1974). 14 See, State v. Grant, 293 Neb. 163 , 876 N.W.2d 639 (2016); State v. Erpelding, 292 Neb. 351 , 874 N.W.2d 265 (2015). 15 Supplemental brief for appellant at 18. - 802 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2023See, also, State v. Johnson, 269 Neb. 507 , 695 N.W.2d 165 (2005); State v. Hert, 192 Neb. 751 , 224 N.W.2d 188 (1974). 14 See, State v. Grant, 293 Neb. 163 , 876 N.W.2d 639 (2016); State v. Erpelding, 292 Neb. 351 , 874 N.W.2d 265 (2015). 15 Supplemental brief for appellant at 18. - 802 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

22023–2023
MacKe v. Pierce red
neb · 2002
2 sentences

2019Laws, L.B. 1207, §§ 3 to 5. 100 Macke v. Pierce , 263 Neb. 868 , 643 N.W.2d 673 (2002) (superseded by statute as stated in Despain v. Despain , 290 Neb. 32 , 858 N.W.2d 566 (2015) ). 101 Supplemental brief for appellant at 7. 102 See § 25-1912(3) (Reissue 2016). 103 See Neb.

2019Laws, L.B. 1207, §§ 3 to 5. 100 Macke v. Pierce , 263 Neb. 868 , 643 N.W.2d 673 (2002) (superseded by statute as stated in Despain v. Despain , 290 Neb. 32 , 858 N.W.2d 566 (2015) ). 101 Supplemental brief for appellant at 7. 102 See § 25-1912(3) (Reissue 2016). 103 See Neb.

22019–2019
McClellan v. Board of Equalization green
neb · 2008
2 sentences

2019Dist. , 302 Neb. 442 , 923 N.W.2d 717 (2019). 77 State v. Phillips , 302 Neb. 686 , 924 N.W.2d 699 (2019). 78 Id. 79 Supplemental brief for appellant at 6. 80 Id. at 7. 81 McClellan , supra note 75, 275 Neb. at 590 , 748 N.W.2d at 73 . 82 See, § 25-1931 (Reissue 1995) ; 1999 Neb.

2019Dist. , 302 Neb. 442 , 923 N.W.2d 717 (2019). 77 State v. Phillips , 302 Neb. 686 , 924 N.W.2d 699 (2019). 78 Id. 79 Supplemental brief for appellant at 6. 80 Id. at 7. 81 McClellan , supra note 75, 275 Neb. at 590 , 748 N.W.2d at 73 . 82 See, § 25-1931 (Reissue 1995) ; 1999 Neb.

22019–2019
Burke v. Bd. of Trs. of the Neb. State Colls. green
neb · 2019
2 sentences

2019Ed. 2d 55 (1997). - 504 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports BURKE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES Cite as 302 Neb. 494 individual or official capacity.

2019Ed. 2d 55 (1997). - 504 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports BURKE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES Cite as 302 Neb. 494 individual or official capacity.

22019–2019
State v. Mann green
neb · 2019
2 sentences

2019The State’s supplemental brief “adhere[d] to its initial position.”20 However, it offered an “alternative interpretation”21 suggesting that the placement of the intent to restore clause after the penalty language could mean that it was “fairly 18 State v. Hubbard, 267 Neb. 316 , 673 N.W.2d 567 (2004). 19 Brief for appellee at 17. 20 Supplemental brief for appellee at 1. 21 Id. - 813 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. MANN Cite as 302 Neb. 804 characterized as an affirmative defense.”22 But the State then argued that assuming that intent to restore was an es

2019The State’s supplemental brief “adhere[d] to its initial position.”20 However, it offered an “alternative interpretation”21 suggesting that the placement of the intent to restore clause after the penalty language could mean that it was “fairly 18 State v. Hubbard, 267 Neb. 316 , 673 N.W.2d 567 (2004). 19 Brief for appellee at 17. 20 Supplemental brief for appellee at 1. 21 Id. - 813 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. MANN Cite as 302 Neb. 804 characterized as an affirmative defense.”22 But the State then argued that assuming that intent to restore was an es

22019–2019
Frohberg Elec. Co. v. Grossenburg Implement green
neb · 2017
2 sentences

2018Co. v. Grossenburg Implement , 297 Neb. 356 , 900 N.W.2d 32 (2017). 48 Supplemental brief for appellant on petition for further review at 13. 49 Fitzgerald v. Community Redevelopment Corp. , 283 Neb. 428 , 811 N.W.2d 178 (2012). 50 Brief for appellant at 30. 51 Liming v. Liming, supra note 22 . 52 Martin v .

2018Co. v. Grossenburg Implement , 297 Neb. 356 , 900 N.W.2d 32 (2017). 48 Supplemental brief for appellant on petition for further review at 13. 49 Fitzgerald v. Community Redevelopment Corp. , 283 Neb. 428 , 811 N.W.2d 178 (2012). 50 Brief for appellant at 30. 51 Liming v. Liming, supra note 22 . 52 Martin v .

22018–2018
State v. Perry green
neb · 2025
1 sentence

2026Because the record in these consolidated appeals does not reflect that the juvenile court had any statutory authority to modify the dispositions, all such modifications must be vacated for plain error 77 and the matters remanded to the juve- nile court. 75 Supplemental brief for appellee at 10. 76 State v. Perry, 318 Neb. 613 , 17 N.W.3d 504 (2025). 77 See, In re Interest of Josue G., supra note 62; In re Interest of Nowa K., supra note 65; In re Interest of Iyana P., supra note 65. - 706 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 320 Nebraska Reports IN RE INTEREST OF JOHNNY H.

12026–2026
Pettegrew v. Pettegrew green
neb · 1935
2 sentences

2026Regarding the concept of judicial discretion, Pettegrew noted that the term itself “‘denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule,’” 28 but we 24 Supplemental brief for appellant in support of petition for further review at 13-14. 25 Compare, e.g., Aldana Cardenas, supra note 17 , 314 Neb. at 549 , 990 N.W.2d at 921 (“[a]n abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence”), and Hunt, supra note 9 (same), with Jeremiah T., supra note 2, 319 Neb. at 144

2026Regarding the concept of judicial discretion, Pettegrew noted that the term itself “‘denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule,’” 28 but we 24 Supplemental brief for appellant in support of petition for further review at 13-14. 25 Compare, e.g., Aldana Cardenas, supra note 17 , 314 Neb. at 549 , 990 N.W.2d at 921 (“[a]n abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence”), and Hunt, supra note 9 (same), with Jeremiah T., supra note 2, 319 Neb. at 144

12026–2026
State v. Bluett green
neb · 2016
2 sentences

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.

12026–2026
State v. Damore green
neb · 2026
2 sentences

2026DAMORE Cite as 320 Neb. 914 an important opportunity for this Court to clarify the proper scope of abuse-of-discretion review after Jeremiah T.” 24 Damore is correct that our juvenile transfer opinions gen- erally recite one of two common definitions of the abuse of discretion standard. 25 But, as we explain next, although the wording of the definitions differs in some respects, the defini- tions describe the same highly deferential standard of review.

2026DAMORE Cite as 320 Neb. 914 endorsed the U.S. Supreme Court’s observation that judicial discretion “‘means a sound discretion, that is to say, a discre- tion exercised not arbitrarily or wil[l]fully, but with regard to what is right and equitable under the circumstances and the law, and directed by the reason and conscience of the judge to a just result.’” 29 Relatedly, when describing an abuse of discre- tion, Pettegrew quoted the Iowa Supreme Court’s observation that “‘[i]f the reasons given by the court for its action are clearly untenable or unreasonable, if its action clearly amounts to a

12026–2026
State v. Jeremiah T. green
neb · 2025
1 sentence

2026Regarding the concept of judicial discretion, Pettegrew noted that the term itself “‘denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule,’” 28 but we 24 Supplemental brief for appellant in support of petition for further review at 13-14. 25 Compare, e.g., Aldana Cardenas, supra note 17 , 314 Neb. at 549 , 990 N.W.2d at 921 (“[a]n abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence”), and Hunt, supra note 9 (same), with Jeremiah T., supra note 2, 319 Neb. at 144

12026–2026
In re Guardianship of Brydon P. green
neb · 2013
1 sentence

2025He suggests that under § 30-2211, the Legislature gave county courts “juris- diction over all subject matter relating to . . . protection of minors,” 40 including “full power to make orders . . . and take all other action necessary and proper to administer justice in the matters which come before it.” 41 Marvin relies on the 38 In re Guardianship of Brydon P., 286 Neb. 661, 672 , 838 N.W.2d 262 , 271 (2013). 39 Supplemental brief for appellant at 11. 40 § 30-2211(a). 41 § 30-2211(b) (emphasis supplied). - 520 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF TO

12025–2025
In re Guardianship of Tomas J. green
neb · 2025
1 sentence

2025Cite as 318 Neb. 503 language italicized above to argue that where § 43-1238(b) of the UCCJEA does not apply to grant jurisdiction, we should hold that “§ 30-2211 gives a county court authority to make SIJ predicate findings in a guardianship proceeding.” 42 We decline to consider, in this case, whether any Nebraska statute other than § 43-1238(b) gives a county court jurisdic- tion to make SIJ factual findings when a minor guardian has been appointed.

12025–2025
Backhaus v. Backhaus green
neb · 2025
1 sentence

2025BACKHAUS Cite as 318 Neb. 891 Although we agree with Sarah that David’s testimony left something to be desired in terms of detail, we have already dis- avowed the idea of needing to definitively prove the amount of the inheritance, which is, in part, what Sarah takes issue with.

12025–2025
Elbert v. Keating, O'Gara green
neb · 2025
1 sentence

2025KEATING, O’GARA Cite as 319 Neb. 390 for lack of jurisdiction, 8 explaining that the order of April 20 did not resolve the pending counterclaim or the related request for attorney fees.

12025–2025
Ostler v. City of Omaha green
neb · 1965
12024–2024
Marcotte v. City of Omaha green
neb · 1976
12024–2024
State v. Brown green
neb · 2022
12024–2024
Lancaster County v. Slezak green
neb · 2024
12024–2024
Moser v. State green
neb · 2020
12024–2024
Friedman v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF ROADS green
neb · 1968
12024–2024
Dlouhy v. City of Fremont neutral
neb · 1963
2 sentences

2024No. 39 v. Farber, 215 Neb. 791 , 341 N.W.2d 320 (1983); Marcotte v. City of Omaha, 196 Neb. 217 , 241 N.W.2d 838 (1976); Friedman v. State, 183 Neb. 9 , 157 N.W.2d 855 (1968); Adams v. City of Omaha, 179 Neb. 684 , 139 N.W.2d 885 (1966); Ostler v. City of Omaha, 179 Neb. 515 , 138 N.W.2d 826 (1965); Dlouhy v. City of Fremont, 175 Neb. 115 , 120 N.W.2d 590 (1963); McDonald v. Rentfrow, 171 Neb. 479 , 106 N.W.2d 682 (1960); From v. Sutton, 156 Neb. 411 , 56 N.W.2d 441 (1953); Fike v. Ott, 76 Neb. 439 , 107 N.W. 774 (1906); Smith v. Delane, 74 Neb. 594 , 104 N.W. 1054 (1905); Brabham v. Custer Co

2024No. 39 v. Farber, 215 Neb. 791 , 341 N.W.2d 320 (1983); Marcotte v. City of Omaha, 196 Neb. 217 , 241 N.W.2d 838 (1976); Friedman v. State, 183 Neb. 9 , 157 N.W.2d 855 (1968); Adams v. City of Omaha, 179 Neb. 684 , 139 N.W.2d 885 (1966); Ostler v. City of Omaha, 179 Neb. 515 , 138 N.W.2d 826 (1965); Dlouhy v. City of Fremont, 175 Neb. 115 , 120 N.W.2d 590 (1963); McDonald v. Rentfrow, 171 Neb. 479 , 106 N.W.2d 682 (1960); From v. Sutton, 156 Neb. 411 , 56 N.W.2d 441 (1953); Fike v. Ott, 76 Neb. 439 , 107 N.W. 774 (1906); Smith v. Delane, 74 Neb. 594 , 104 N.W. 1054 (1905); Brabham v. Custer Co

12024–2024
Anania v. City of Omaha green
neb · 1960
2 sentences

2024Stat. § 25-1905 (Reissue 2016) and § 25-1906. 15 When we issued our opinion 12 Supplemental brief for appellants at 9. 13 Supplemental brief for appellee at 9. 14 Anania v. City of Omaha, 170 Neb. 160 , 102 N.W.2d 49 (1960). 15 See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 231 Neb. 108 , 435 N.W.2d 184 (1989); School Dist.

2024Stat. § 25-1905 (Reissue 2016) and § 25-1906. 15 When we issued our opinion 12 Supplemental brief for appellants at 9. 13 Supplemental brief for appellee at 9. 14 Anania v. City of Omaha, 170 Neb. 160 , 102 N.W.2d 49 (1960). 15 See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 231 Neb. 108 , 435 N.W.2d 184 (1989); School Dist.

12024–2024
Purdy v. City of York green
neb · 1993
12024–2024
Smith v. Delane green
neb · 1905
2 sentences

2024No. 39 v. Farber, 215 Neb. 791 , 341 N.W.2d 320 (1983); Marcotte v. City of Omaha, 196 Neb. 217 , 241 N.W.2d 838 (1976); Friedman v. State, 183 Neb. 9 , 157 N.W.2d 855 (1968); Adams v. City of Omaha, 179 Neb. 684 , 139 N.W.2d 885 (1966); Ostler v. City of Omaha, 179 Neb. 515 , 138 N.W.2d 826 (1965); Dlouhy v. City of Fremont, 175 Neb. 115 , 120 N.W.2d 590 (1963); McDonald v. Rentfrow, 171 Neb. 479 , 106 N.W.2d 682 (1960); From v. Sutton, 156 Neb. 411 , 56 N.W.2d 441 (1953); Fike v. Ott, 76 Neb. 439 , 107 N.W. 774 (1906); Smith v. Delane, 74 Neb. 594 , 104 N.W. 1054 (1905); Brabham v. Custer Co

2024No. 39 v. Farber, 215 Neb. 791 , 341 N.W.2d 320 (1983); Marcotte v. City of Omaha, 196 Neb. 217 , 241 N.W.2d 838 (1976); Friedman v. State, 183 Neb. 9 , 157 N.W.2d 855 (1968); Adams v. City of Omaha, 179 Neb. 684 , 139 N.W.2d 885 (1966); Ostler v. City of Omaha, 179 Neb. 515 , 138 N.W.2d 826 (1965); Dlouhy v. City of Fremont, 175 Neb. 115 , 120 N.W.2d 590 (1963); McDonald v. Rentfrow, 171 Neb. 479 , 106 N.W.2d 682 (1960); From v. Sutton, 156 Neb. 411 , 56 N.W.2d 441 (1953); Fike v. Ott, 76 Neb. 439 , 107 N.W. 774 (1906); Smith v. Delane, 74 Neb. 594 , 104 N.W. 1054 (1905); Brabham v. Custer Co

12024–2024
Fike v. Ott neutral
neb · 1906
12024–2024
Brown v. BD. OF ED. OF SCH. D. OF WILCOX green
neb · 1989
12024–2024
McDonald v. Rentfrow red
neb · 1960
12024–2024
From v. Sutton red
neb · 1953
12024–2024
Adams v. City of Omaha neutral
neb · 1966
12024–2024
SCHOOL DIST. NO. 39 OF SARPY CTY. v. Farber green
neb · 1983
12024–2024
State v. Fernandez green
neb · 2023
12023–2023
Callahan v. Brant green
neb · 2023
12023–2023
Sparks v. Mach green
neb · 2023
12023–2023
State v. Jennings green
neb · 2022
12023–2023

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106 (9) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (6) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1301 (5) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1901 (5) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-509 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1111 (3) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2729 (3) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1205 (3) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1212.03 (3) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001 (3) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1369 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NY 198 (1891–2026) CA 95 (1926–2026) TX 84 (1935–2025) MI 62 (1936–2025) IL 62 (1898–2026) MA 58 (1976–2026) OH 56 (1972–2025) MD 55 (1932–2026) NE 51 (1930–2026) TN 44 (1987–2024) CO 39 (1949–2026) CT 34 (1953–2021) PA 32 (1901–2025) NJ 30 (1964–2026) WA 29 (1915–2023) DC 22 (1974–2024) UT 21 (1954–2026) IN 21 (1980–2019) IA 21 (1995–2025) FL 19 (1986–2024) AL 18 (1912–2014) OR 18 (1954–2026) WV 15 (1931–2025) NC 13 (1988–2022) SC 13 (1983–2023) ID 11 (1983–2025) WY 11 (1968–2021) MO 11 (1962–2021) MS 10 (1970–2017) RI 10 (1983–2025) WI 10 (1975–2026) AK 9 (1966–2022) VT 8 (1936–2020) ND 8 (1972–2023) GA 8 (1950–2021) AZ 8 (1996–2019) HI 8 (1980–2011) KS 7 (1940–2014) DE 7 (1973–2026) NM 6 (1963–2018) OK 6 (1912–2004) AR 5 (1949–1970) MT 5 (1992–2011) LA 4 (1985–2009) VA 3 (1988–1999) MN 3 (1980–2016) NV 3 (2019–2019) NH 2 (1992–2009) ME 2 (2002–2003) VI 2 (2010–2013)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check