show cause hearing in Nebraska

2026Diedra T. v. Justina R., 313 Neb. 417 , 984 N.W.2d 312 (2023).

2023Cite as 313 Neb. 417 a harassment protection order was still on the table” 36 after Diedra “elected” to pursue a domestic abuse protection order at the show cause hearing. 37 Diedra counters that Justina had notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding a harass- ment protection order.

2022D.W. further alleged that A.G. had vio- lated contact restrictions imposed by the university they both 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. at 619, 856 N.W.2d at 446. 15 D.W. v. A.G., 303 Neb. 42 , 926 N.W.2d 651 (2019). - 760 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports YERANIA O. v. JUAN P. Cite as 310 Neb. 749 attended, “‘interfering with [her] educational experience.’” 16 An ex parte sexual assault protection order was entered against A.G., who then requested a show cause hearing on whether the sexual assault protection order should remain in place.

2022D.W. further alleged that A.G. had vio- lated contact restrictions imposed by the university they both 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. at 619, 856 N.W.2d at 446. 15 D.W. v. A.G., 303 Neb. 42 , 926 N.W.2d 651 (2019). - 760 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports YERANIA O. v. JUAN P. Cite as 310 Neb. 749 attended, “‘interfering with [her] educational experience.’” 16 An ex parte sexual assault protection order was entered against A.G., who then requested a show cause hearing on whether the sexual assault protection order should remain in place.

2022D.W. further alleged that A.G. had vio- lated contact restrictions imposed by the university they both 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. at 619, 856 N.W.2d at 446. 15 D.W. v. A.G., 303 Neb. 42 , 926 N.W.2d 651 (2019). - 760 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports YERANIA O. v. JUAN P. Cite as 310 Neb. 749 attended, “‘interfering with [her] educational experience.’” 16 An ex parte sexual assault protection order was entered against A.G., who then requested a show cause hearing on whether the sexual assault protection order should remain in place.

2022D.W. did not request a harassment protection order or make allegations sufficient to give notice that she sought such an order, and no evidence could be identified at the show cause hearing that tended to show A.G. harassed D.W. 16 Id. at 44, 926 N.W.2d at 654 . 17 Id. at 43, 926 N.W.2d at 654 . 18 Id. at 50, 926 N.W.2d at 657 . - 761 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports YERANIA O. v. JUAN P. Cite as 310 Neb. 749 After again noting the issues of advocacy by the court, as previously discussed in Sherman, this court explained that the procedure had been insufficient where

2022D.W. further alleged that A.G. had vio- lated contact restrictions imposed by the university they both 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. at 619, 856 N.W.2d at 446. 15 D.W. v. A.G., 303 Neb. 42 , 926 N.W.2d 651 (2019). - 760 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports YERANIA O. v. JUAN P. Cite as 310 Neb. 749 attended, “‘interfering with [her] educational experience.’” 16 An ex parte sexual assault protection order was entered against A.G., who then requested a show cause hearing on whether the sexual assault protection order should remain in place.

2022D.W. further alleged that A.G. had vio- lated contact restrictions imposed by the university they both 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. at 619, 856 N.W.2d at 446. 15 D.W. v. A.G., 303 Neb. 42 , 926 N.W.2d 651 (2019). - 760 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports YERANIA O. v. JUAN P. Cite as 310 Neb. 749 attended, “‘interfering with [her] educational experience.’” 16 An ex parte sexual assault protection order was entered against A.G., who then requested a show cause hearing on whether the sexual assault protection order should remain in place.

2018Torres v. Morales , 287 Neb. 587 , 843 N.W.2d 805 (2014) ; Mahmood v.Mahmud , 279 Neb. 390 , 778 N.W.2d 426 (2010).

2018Torres v. Morales, 287 Neb. 587 , 843 N.W.2d 805 (2014); Mahmood v. - 691 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports MARIA A. ON BEHALF OF LESLIE G. v. OSCAR G.

2025SORENSEN Cite as 319 Neb. 326 William also averred that later that same day, when Natalie and Steve came to pick up the children at the conclusion of William’s parenting time, a verbal argument ensued and escalated into yelling and name calling, and Natalie spun her vehicle’s tires, “leaving 20 foot sections of rubber marks on the drive.” William’s affidavit described Steve as “unhinged” and expressed concern that without a protection order, there was danger William would “get blindsided every time I pick my kids up or any time I’m at their sporting events.” The court granted William an ex par

2025SORENSEN Cite as 319 Neb. 326 [7] Given the statutory text governing harassment protec- tion orders and our cases construing it, the petitioner at a show cause hearing must prove the following material elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the respondent knowingly and willfully engaged in a course of conduct directed at the petitioner that seriously terrified, threatened, or intimidated the petitioner; (2) a reasonable person under the circumstances would have been seriously terrified, threatened, or intimidated by the respondent’s conduct; and (3) the respondent’s conduct served no

2018It was plainly meant to address 14 See Hron v. Donlan, supra note 10 . 15 See Courtney v. Jimenez, 25 Neb.

2017Accordingly, failing to file a request for a show cause hearing within that 5-day period does not preclude the later filing of a motion to bring the matter back before the - 88 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 25 Nebraska A ppellate R eports COURTNEY v. JIMENEZ Cite as 25 Neb.

2023BELINA Cite as 32 Neb.

2022After the show cause hearing, the district court granted Shelter’s motion to dismiss the entire action with prejudice, finding that Millard Gutter’s delay “entirely stalled the case for nearly [a] year and a half at the initial pleading stage” and that Millard Gutter had no intention of filing an amended complaint to remedy the deficiencies the court had identified in the origi- nal complaint. 66 See, e.g., Nystrom v. Melcher, 262 Mont. 151 , 864 P.2d 754 (1993); Clay v. City of Margate, 546 So. 2d 434 (Fla. App. 1989); Medved v. Baird, 58 Wis. 2d 563 , 207 N.W.2d 70 (1973). 67 Link v. Wabash

2022After the show cause hearing, the district court granted Shelter’s motion to dismiss the entire action with prejudice, finding that Millard Gutter’s delay “entirely stalled the case for nearly [a] year and a half at the initial pleading stage” and that Millard Gutter had no intention of filing an amended complaint to remedy the deficiencies the court had identified in the origi- nal complaint. 66 See, e.g., Nystrom v. Melcher, 262 Mont. 151 , 864 P.2d 754 (1993); Clay v. City of Margate, 546 So. 2d 434 (Fla. App. 1989); Medved v. Baird, 58 Wis. 2d 563 , 207 N.W.2d 70 (1973). 67 Link v. Wabash

2022After the show cause hearing, the district court granted Shelter’s motion to dismiss the entire action with prejudice, finding that Millard Gutter’s delay “entirely stalled the case for nearly [a] year and a half at the initial pleading stage” and that Millard Gutter had no intention of filing an amended complaint to remedy the deficiencies the court had identified in the origi- nal complaint. 66 See, e.g., Nystrom v. Melcher, 262 Mont. 151 , 864 P.2d 754 (1993); Clay v. City of Margate, 546 So. 2d 434 (Fla. App. 1989); Medved v. Baird, 58 Wis. 2d 563 , 207 N.W.2d 70 (1973). 67 Link v. Wabash

2022After the show cause hearing, the district court granted Shelter’s motion to dismiss the entire action with prejudice, finding that Millard Gutter’s delay “entirely stalled the case for nearly [a] year and a half at the initial pleading stage” and that Millard Gutter had no intention of filing an amended complaint to remedy the deficiencies the court had identified in the origi- nal complaint. 66 See, e.g., Nystrom v. Melcher, 262 Mont. 151 , 864 P.2d 754 (1993); Clay v. City of Margate, 546 So. 2d 434 (Fla. App. 1989); Medved v. Baird, 58 Wis. 2d 563 , 207 N.W.2d 70 (1973). 67 Link v. Wabash

2022However, prior to the hearing, the court entered a temporary order in which the court updated - 622 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 30 Nebraska Appellate Reports CECH v. CECH Cite as 30 Neb.

2022After the show cause hearing, the district court granted Shelter’s motion to dismiss the entire action with prejudice, finding that Millard Gutter’s delay “entirely stalled the case for nearly [a] year and a half at the initial pleading stage” and that Millard Gutter had no intention of filing an amended complaint to remedy the deficiencies the court had identified in the origi- nal complaint. 66 See, e.g., Nystrom v. Melcher, 262 Mont. 151 , 864 P.2d 754 (1993); Clay v. City of Margate, 546 So. 2d 434 (Fla. App. 1989); Medved v. Baird, 58 Wis. 2d 563 , 207 N.W.2d 70 (1973). 67 Link v. Wabash

2022After the show cause hearing, the district court granted Shelter’s motion to dismiss the entire action with prejudice, finding that Millard Gutter’s delay “entirely stalled the case for nearly [a] year and a half at the initial pleading stage” and that Millard Gutter had no intention of filing an amended complaint to remedy the deficiencies the court had identified in the origi- nal complaint. 66 See, e.g., Nystrom v. Melcher, 262 Mont. 151 , 864 P.2d 754 (1993); Clay v. City of Margate, 546 So. 2d 434 (Fla. App. 1989); Medved v. Baird, 58 Wis. 2d 563 , 207 N.W.2d 70 (1973). 67 Link v. Wabash

2022After the show cause hearing, the district court granted Shelter’s motion to dismiss the entire action with prejudice, finding that Millard Gutter’s delay “entirely stalled the case for nearly [a] year and a half at the initial pleading stage” and that Millard Gutter had no intention of filing an amended complaint to remedy the deficiencies the court had identified in the origi- nal complaint. 66 See, e.g., Nystrom v. Melcher, 262 Mont. 151 , 864 P.2d 754 (1993); Clay v. City of Margate, 546 So. 2d 434 (Fla. App. 1989); Medved v. Baird, 58 Wis. 2d 563 , 207 N.W.2d 70 (1973). 67 Link v. Wabash

2021Id.

2018Torres v. Morales, supra; Mahmood v. Mahmud, supra. See, also, Rosberg v. Rosberg, 25 Neb.

2018Interpreting the mean- ing of “appear” under § 28-311.09 demands an authoritative 11 Id. 12 Hauser v. Hauser, 259 Neb. 653 , 611 N.W.2d 840 (2000); Elstun v. Elstun, supra note 10 . 13 Id. - 433 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports WEATHERLY v. COCHRAN Cite as 301 Neb. 426 a­ djudication for future guidance of public officials.14 However, we do not find it necessary under the public interest exception to address whether the evidence presented at the show cause hearing was sufficient to warrant the 1-year extension of the harassment protection order, which has since ex

2018Interpreting the mean- ing of “appear” under § 28-311.09 demands an authoritative 11 Id. 12 Hauser v. Hauser, 259 Neb. 653 , 611 N.W.2d 840 (2000); Elstun v. Elstun, supra note 10 . 13 Id. - 433 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports WEATHERLY v. COCHRAN Cite as 301 Neb. 426 a­ djudication for future guidance of public officials.14 However, we do not find it necessary under the public interest exception to address whether the evidence presented at the show cause hearing was sufficient to warrant the 1-year extension of the harassment protection order, which has since ex

2018App. 75 , 903 N.W.2d 41 (2017) (holding that moot issue of sufficiency of evidence to support domestic abuse protection order does not fall under public interest exception). 16 See § 28-311.09. 17 Dean v. State, supra note 4. 18 Farmers Co-op v. State, 296 Neb. 347 , 893 N.W.2d 728 (2017). - 434 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports WEATHERLY v. COCHRAN Cite as 301 Neb. 426 the situation where a respondent fails to “appear” at a show cause hearing.

2018Interpreting the mean- ing of “appear” under § 28-311.09 demands an authoritative 11 Id. 12 Hauser v. Hauser, 259 Neb. 653 , 611 N.W.2d 840 (2000); Elstun v. Elstun, supra note 10 . 13 Id. - 433 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports WEATHERLY v. COCHRAN Cite as 301 Neb. 426 a­ djudication for future guidance of public officials.14 However, we do not find it necessary under the public interest exception to address whether the evidence presented at the show cause hearing was sufficient to warrant the 1-year extension of the harassment protection order, which has since ex

2018App. 75 , 903 N.W.2d 41 (2017) (holding that moot issue of sufficiency of evidence to support domestic abuse protection order does not fall under public interest exception). 16 See § 28-311.09. 17 Dean v. State, supra note 4. 18 Farmers Co-op v. State, 296 Neb. 347 , 893 N.W.2d 728 (2017). - 434 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports WEATHERLY v. COCHRAN Cite as 301 Neb. 426 the situation where a respondent fails to “appear” at a show cause hearing.

2018App. 75 , 903 N.W.2d 41 (2017) (holding that moot issue of sufficiency of evidence to support domestic abuse protection order does not fall under public interest exception). 16 See § 28-311.09. 17 Dean v. State, supra note 4. 18 Farmers Co-op v. State, 296 Neb. 347 , 893 N.W.2d 728 (2017). - 434 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports WEATHERLY v. COCHRAN Cite as 301 Neb. 426 the situation where a respondent fails to “appear” at a show cause hearing.

2015In re Interest of Jeffrey K., 273 Neb. 239 , 728 N.W.2d 606 (2007).

2015In re Interest of Jeffrey K., 273 Neb. 239 , 728 N.W.2d 606 (2007).

2015The Nebraska Supreme Court has stated, “While we do not expect show cause harassment protection hearings to reflect the full panoply of procedures common to civil trials, we do hold that at a minimum, testimony must be under oath and documents must be admitted into evidence before being considered.” 279 Neb. at 398 . -4- In Elstun v. Elstun, 257 Neb. 820 , 600 N.W.2d 835 (1999), the Nebraska Supreme Court found that the appellant’s statutory right to cross-examine witnesses had been violated during a show cause hearing for a protection order where the trial court explicitly denied requests fro

2015The Nebraska Supreme Court has stated, “While we do not expect show cause harassment protection hearings to reflect the full panoply of procedures common to civil trials, we do hold that at a minimum, testimony must be under oath and documents must be admitted into evidence before being considered.” 279 Neb. at 398 . -4- In Elstun v. Elstun, 257 Neb. 820 , 600 N.W.2d 835 (1999), the Nebraska Supreme Court found that the appellant’s statutory right to cross-examine witnesses had been violated during a show cause hearing for a protection order where the trial court explicitly denied requests fro