parens patriae doctrine in Nebraska

2020V, § 2, this court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition.29 [10] The following year, a majority of this court again held that “a juvenile court proceeding, under the controlling statute in the State of Nebraska, is a civil proceeding and under the doctrine of parens patriae, the constitutional guarantees of a jury trial and the incidents thereto are not applicable to a juve- nile proceeding under our statute.”30 Currently, § 43-279(1) provides in part: “The adjudication portion of hearings shall be conducted before the court without a jury, applying the customary rules of evidence in u

2020V, § 2, this court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition.29 [10] The following year, a majority of this court again held that “a juvenile court proceeding, under the controlling statute in the State of Nebraska, is a civil proceeding and under the doctrine of parens patriae, the constitutional guarantees of a jury trial and the incidents thereto are not applicable to a juve- nile proceeding under our statute.”30 Currently, § 43-279(1) provides in part: “The adjudication portion of hearings shall be conducted before the court without a jury, applying the customary rules of evidence in u

2020V, § 2, this court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition.29 [10] The following year, a majority of this court again held that “a juvenile court proceeding, under the controlling statute in the State of Nebraska, is a civil proceeding and under the doctrine of parens patriae, the constitutional guarantees of a jury trial and the incidents thereto are not applicable to a juve- nile proceeding under our statute.”30 Currently, § 43-279(1) provides in part: “The adjudication portion of hearings shall be conducted before the court without a jury, applying the customary rules of evidence in u

2020V, § 2, this court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition.29 [10] The following year, a majority of this court again held that “a juvenile court proceeding, under the controlling statute in the State of Nebraska, is a civil proceeding and under the doctrine of parens patriae, the constitutional guarantees of a jury trial and the incidents thereto are not applicable to a juve- nile proceeding under our statute.”30 Currently, § 43-279(1) provides in part: “The adjudication portion of hearings shall be conducted before the court without a jury, applying the customary rules of evidence in u

2013Quintela v. Quintela, 4 Neb.

2005Horton v. Meskill, 187 Conn. 187 , 445 A.2d 579 (1982).

2005Horton v. Meskill, 187 Conn. 187 , 445 A.2d 579 (1982).

2005See, e.g., Maine v. Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 262 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2001); United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics, 749 F.2d 968 (2d Cir. 1984); Commonwealth of Pa. v. Rizzo, 530 F.2d 501 (3d Cir. 1976); New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 126 *670 N.M. 788, 975 P.2d 841 (1998).

2005Hooker Chemicals & Plastics, supra. In applying the parens patriae doctrine, courts have held that in cases where a party sought to intervene as defendants to defend the constitutionality of a statute, the state adequately represented the applicant’s interests and denied intervention as a matter of *671 right.

2005See, e.g., Maine v. Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 262 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2001); United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics, 749 F.2d 968 (2d Cir. 1984); Commonwealth of Pa. v. Rizzo, 530 F.2d 501 (3d Cir. 1976); New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 126 *670 N.M. 788, 975 P.2d 841 (1998).

2005See, e.g., Maine v. Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 262 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2001); United States v. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics, 749 F.2d 968 (2d Cir. 1984); Commonwealth of Pa. v. Rizzo, 530 F.2d 501 (3d Cir. 1976); New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson, 126 *670 N.M. 788, 975 P.2d 841 (1998).

2005LPS argues that we overruled the parens patriae doctrine in Ruzicka v. Ruzicka, 262 Neb. 824 , 635 N.W.2d 528 (2001).

2005LPS argues that we overruled the parens patriae doctrine in Ruzicka v. Ruzicka, 262 Neb. 824 , 635 N.W.2d 528 (2001).

1998Id.

1991In re Interest of A.L.N., 223 Neb. 675 , 392 N.W.2d 780 (1986).

1991In re Interest of A.L.N., 223 Neb. 675 , 392 N.W.2d 780 (1986).

1968The following quotations from In re Gault, supra, indicate that the conclusion supported by a majority of the court is the only one possible under the circumstances: “Mr. Justice Douglas said, ‘Neither man nor child can be allowed to stand condemned by methods which flout constitutional requirements of due process of law.’ To the same effect is Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U. S. 49 (1962).