43 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hauser v. Hausergreen2 sentences2015Our Supreme Court held in Hauser v. Hauser, 259 Neb. 653 , 611 N.W.2d 840 (2000), that even when the defending party alleges that the protection order may cause that person to be subject to certain employment ramifications or that he may also face future criminal prosecutions, an exception to the mootness doctrine is not justified if the record is devoid of evidence to show a criminal conviction resulting from the issuance of a protection order, or that any other rights or liabilities were actually affected by issuance of the protection order. 2015Our Supreme Court held in Hauser v. Hauser, 259 Neb. 653 , 611 N.W.2d 840 (2000), that even when the defending party alleges that the protection order may cause that person to be subject to certain employment ramifications or that he may also face future criminal prosecutions, an exception to the mootness doctrine is not justified if the record is devoid of evidence to show a criminal conviction resulting from the issuance of a protection order, or that any other rights or liabilities were actually affected by issuance of the protection order. | 4 | 5 |
Rath v. City of Suttongreen2 sentences2025We have held that a “‘suit that seeks damages for harm caused by past practices is not ren- dered moot by the cessation of the challenged conduct.’” 12 7 Brief for appellee at 25. 8 City of Hastings v. Sheets, 317 Neb. 88 , 8 N.W.3d 771 (2024). 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Rath v. City of Sutton, 267 Neb. 265, 274 , 673 N.W.2d 869, 880 (2004). - 486 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 320 Nebraska Reports RAMAEKERS V. 2025We have held that a “‘suit that seeks damages for harm caused by past practices is not ren- dered moot by the cessation of the challenged conduct.’” 12 7 Brief for appellee at 25. 8 City of Hastings v. Sheets, 317 Neb. 88 , 8 N.W.3d 771 (2024). 9 Id. 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Rath v. City of Sutton, 267 Neb. 265, 274 , 673 N.W.2d 869, 880 (2004). - 486 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 320 Nebraska Reports RAMAEKERS V. | 3 | 3 |
Chaney v. Evnengreen2 sentences2023See, also, Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512, 518 , 949 N.W.2d 761, 767 (2020) (“[t]he central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief”); State v. Harig, 192 Neb. 49 , 218 N.W.2d 884 (1974) (issue of excessiveness of pretrial bail is not reviewable after conviction and sentence). - 662 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V. 2023See, also, Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512, 518 , 949 N.W.2d 761, 767 (2020) (“[t]he central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief”); State v. Harig, 192 Neb. 49 , 218 N.W.2d 884 (1974) (issue of excessiveness of pretrial bail is not reviewable after conviction and sentence). - 662 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V. | 2 | 4 |
Simms v. Frielgreen2 sentences2019See Simms v. Friel, 25 Neb. 2019See Simms v. Friel, 25 Neb. | 2 | 2 |
Gladson v. Iowa Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2018See, also, Gladson v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 551 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2009); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985); Wycoff v. Brewer, 572 F.2d 1260 (8th Cir. 1978). - 10 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports NESBITT v. FRAKES Cite as 300 Neb. 1 the public interest or when other rights or liabilities may be affected by its determination.25 This exception requires a con- sideration of the public or private nature of the question pre- sented, the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future guidance of public officials, and the likelihood of futur 2018See, also, Gladson v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 551 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2009); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985); Wycoff v. Brewer, 572 F.2d 1260 (8th Cir. 1978). - 10 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports NESBITT v. FRAKES Cite as 300 Neb. 1 the public interest or when other rights or liabilities may be affected by its determination.25 This exception requires a con- sideration of the public or private nature of the question pre- sented, the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future guidance of public officials, and the likelihood of futur | 2 | 2 |
Nesbitt Ex Rel. Himself & All Other Similarly Situated Neb. State Penitentiary Segregated Prisoners v. Frakesgreen2 sentences2021More specifically, in Nesbitt v. Frakes, 300 Neb. 1, 10 , 911 N.W.2d 598, 606 (2018), the Supreme Court held that “[a]n application of the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine is inappropriate when the issues presented on appeal do not inherently evade appellate review.” In this case, although Torrien’s appeal was rendered moot due to her reaching the age of majority, other cases would not inherently evade review by appellate courts if the juvenile did not reach the age of majority during the pendency of the appeal. 2021More specifically, in Nesbitt v. Frakes, 300 Neb. 1, 10 , 911 N.W.2d 598, 606 (2018), the Supreme Court held that “[a]n application of the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine is inappropriate when the issues presented on appeal do not inherently evade appellate review.” In this case, although Torrien’s appeal was rendered moot due to her reaching the age of majority, other cases would not inherently evade review by appellate courts if the juvenile did not reach the age of majority during the pendency of the appeal. | 1 | 4 |
State ex rel. Peterson v. Ebkegreen2 sentences2019Peterson v. Ebke, 303 Neb. 637 , 930 N.W.2d 551 (2019). 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. - 588 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P. Cite as 304 Neb. 580 a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the action.15 A moot case is one which seeks to determine a question that no longer rests upon existing facts or rights—i.e., a case in which the issues presented are no longer alive.16 The central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any occasion f 2019Peterson v. Ebke, 303 Neb. 637 , 930 N.W.2d 551 (2019). 10 Id. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. - 588 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports IN RE INTEREST OF GIAVONNI P. Cite as 304 Neb. 580 a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the action.15 A moot case is one which seeks to determine a question that no longer rests upon existing facts or rights—i.e., a case in which the issues presented are no longer alive.16 The central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any occasion f | 1 | 2 |
State v. Castillo-Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2025Mootness [13-18] Mootness does not prevent appellate jurisdiction; rather, mootness is a justiciability doctrine that can prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction. 44 A case is moot if the facts underlying the dispute have changed, such that the issues presented are no longer alive. 45 Stated differently, a case becomes moot when the issues initially presented in litiga- tion cease to exist or the litigants lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of litigation. 46 The central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of lit 2025Mootness [13-18] Mootness does not prevent appellate jurisdiction; rather, mootness is a justiciability doctrine that can prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction. 44 A case is moot if the facts underlying the dispute have changed, such that the issues presented are no longer alive. 45 Stated differently, a case becomes moot when the issues initially presented in litiga- tion cease to exist or the litigants lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of litigation. 46 The central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of lit | 1 | 1 |
In Re Interest of Anayagreen2 sentences2023See In re Interest of Anaya, 276 Neb. 825 , 758 N.W.2d 10 (2008). 2023See In re Interest of Anaya, 276 Neb. 825 , 758 N.W.2d 10 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Mullendore v. Nuernbergergreen2 sentences2020The Supreme Court has said the doctrine of mootness is “‘“the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).”’” Mullendore v. Nuernberger, 230 Neb. 921, 926 , 434 N.W.2d 511, 515 (1989) (quoting United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 , 100 S. Ct. 1202 , 63 L. 2020The Supreme Court has said the doctrine of mootness is “‘“the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).”’” Mullendore v. Nuernberger, 230 Neb. 921, 926 , 434 N.W.2d 511, 515 (1989) (quoting United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 , 100 S. Ct. 1202 , 63 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Bramble v. Bramblegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rodriguez v. Nielsengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Elstun v. Elstungreen | 1 | 1 |
| Koenig v. Southeast Community Collegegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. Dixongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Maack v. School District of Lincolngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Hastings v. Sheets
green
2 sentences2026Seeman v. Lower Republican NRD, 319 Neb. 681 , 24 N.W.3d 874 (2025). 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Saint Joseph Tower Assisted Living v. Royce, 320 Neb. 830 , 30 N.W.3d 838 (2026). 11 Id. 12 City of Hastings v. Sheets, 317 Neb. 88 , 8 N.W.3d 771 (2024). - 73 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports BURBANK v. EVNEN Cite as 321 Neb. 65 a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the action. 13 A moot case is one that seeks to determine a question that no longer rests upon existing facts or rights—i.e., a case in which the issues presented are no longer alive. 14 The central question in 2025We limit our analysis accordingly. [19,20] The public interest exception to the mootness doc- trine requires the consideration of (1) the public or private nature of the question presented, (2) the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for the guidance of public officials, and (3) the likelihood of recurrence of the same or a similar problem. 54 As these factors demonstrate, the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine exists so that authoritative judicial guidance can be provided on issues that are likely to recur but would otherwise inherently evade review. 55 [21] Marvin s | 4 | 2025–2026 |
Johnson v. Vosberg
green
2 sentences2025Appeal Not Moot [14-17] Although we are reviewing this proceeding for plain error, the question of mootness bears directly on our appel- late jurisdiction. 48 A case is moot if the facts underlying the dispute have changed, such that the issues presented are no longer alive. 49 Stated differently, a case becomes moot when the issues initially presented in litigation cease to exist or the litigants lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of litigation. 50 The central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the begin- ning of litigation hav 2025Mootness [13-18] Mootness does not prevent appellate jurisdiction; rather, mootness is a justiciability doctrine that can prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction. 44 A case is moot if the facts underlying the dispute have changed, such that the issues presented are no longer alive. 45 Stated differently, a case becomes moot when the issues initially presented in litiga- tion cease to exist or the litigants lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of litigation. 46 The central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of lit | 3 | 2024–2025 |
NP Dodge Mgmt. Co. v. Holcomb
green
2 sentences2025Co. v. Holcomb, 314 Neb. 748 , 993 N.W.2d 105 (2023). 46 In re Interest of Taylor W., 276 Neb. 679 , 757 N.W.2d 1 (2008). 47 MIMG LXXIV Colonial v. Ellis, supra note 9 . - 521 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF TOMAS J. 2025Co. v. Holcomb, 314 Neb. 748 , 993 N.W.2d 105 (2023). 46 In re Interest of Taylor W., 276 Neb. 679 , 757 N.W.2d 1 (2008). 47 MIMG LXXIV Colonial v. Ellis, supra note 9 . - 521 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF TOMAS J. | 3 | 2025–2025 |
Saint Joseph Tower Assisted Living v. Royce
green
2 sentences2026Seeman v. Lower Republican NRD, 319 Neb. 681 , 24 N.W.3d 874 (2025). 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Saint Joseph Tower Assisted Living v. Royce, 320 Neb. 830 , 30 N.W.3d 838 (2026). 11 Id. 12 City of Hastings v. Sheets, 317 Neb. 88 , 8 N.W.3d 771 (2024). - 73 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports BURBANK v. EVNEN Cite as 321 Neb. 65 a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the action. 13 A moot case is one that seeks to determine a question that no longer rests upon existing facts or rights—i.e., a case in which the issues presented are no longer alive. 14 The central question in 2026ROYCE Cite as 320 Neb. 830 exception to the mootness doctrine applied, and we reasoned that under the URLTA, “there are means by which a tenant can stay enforcement of a writ of restitution pending appeal” 12 and that issues raised on appeal were “bound up with the peculiar procedural history of this particular case.” 13 We also rejected the tenant’s arguments based on a separate exception to the mootness doctrine, the collateral consequences exception, and we reasoned that the collateral consequences exception does not apply outside the criminal context. 14 Like the tenant in NP Dodge Mgmt. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
MIMG LXXIV Colonial v. Ellis
green
2 sentences2025Co. v. Holcomb, 314 Neb. 748 , 993 N.W.2d 105 (2023). 50 In re Interest of Taylor W., 276 Neb. 679 , 757 N.W.2d 1 (2008). 51 MIMG LXXIV Colonial v. Ellis, 316 Neb. 746 , 6 N.W.3d 799 (2024). - 826 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL. 2024ELLIS Cite as 316 Neb. 746 parties offer multiple reasons why we should reach the merits of this case, even if it is moot. [6] First, both parties ask that we reach the merits under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
In Re Interest of Taylor
green
2 sentences2025Co. v. Holcomb, 314 Neb. 748 , 993 N.W.2d 105 (2023). 50 In re Interest of Taylor W., 276 Neb. 679 , 757 N.W.2d 1 (2008). 51 MIMG LXXIV Colonial v. Ellis, 316 Neb. 746 , 6 N.W.3d 799 (2024). - 826 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL. 2025Co. v. Holcomb, 314 Neb. 748 , 993 N.W.2d 105 (2023). 46 In re Interest of Taylor W., 276 Neb. 679 , 757 N.W.2d 1 (2008). 47 MIMG LXXIV Colonial v. Ellis, supra note 9 . - 521 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF TOMAS J. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty
green
2 sentences2020The Supreme Court has said the doctrine of mootness is “‘“the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).”’” Mullendore v. Nuernberger, 230 Neb. 921, 926 , 434 N.W.2d 511, 515 (1989) (quoting United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 , 100 S. Ct. 1202 , 63 L. 2020The Supreme Court has said the doctrine of mootness is “‘“the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness).”’” Mullendore v. Nuernberger, 230 Neb. 921, 926 , 434 N.W.2d 511, 515 (1989) (quoting United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 , 100 S. Ct. 1202 , 63 L. | 2 | 1989–2020 |
Martin v. Sargent
green
2 sentences2018See, also, Gladson v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 551 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2009); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985); Wycoff v. Brewer, 572 F.2d 1260 (8th Cir. 1978). - 10 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports NESBITT v. FRAKES Cite as 300 Neb. 1 the public interest or when other rights or liabilities may be affected by its determination.25 This exception requires a con- sideration of the public or private nature of the question pre- sented, the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future guidance of public officials, and the likelihood of futur 2018See, also, Gladson v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 551 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2009); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985); Wycoff v. Brewer, 572 F.2d 1260 (8th Cir. 1978). - 10 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports NESBITT v. FRAKES Cite as 300 Neb. 1 the public interest or when other rights or liabilities may be affected by its determination.25 This exception requires a con- sideration of the public or private nature of the question pre- sented, the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future guidance of public officials, and the likelihood of futur | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Wycoff v. Brewer
green
2 sentences2018See, also, Gladson v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 551 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2009); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985); Wycoff v. Brewer, 572 F.2d 1260 (8th Cir. 1978). - 10 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports NESBITT v. FRAKES Cite as 300 Neb. 1 the public interest or when other rights or liabilities may be affected by its determination.25 This exception requires a con- sideration of the public or private nature of the question pre- sented, the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future guidance of public officials, and the likelihood of futur 2018See, also, Gladson v. Iowa Dept. of Corrections, 551 F.3d 825 (8th Cir. 2009); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334 (8th Cir. 1985); Wycoff v. Brewer, 572 F.2d 1260 (8th Cir. 1978). - 10 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports NESBITT v. FRAKES Cite as 300 Neb. 1 the public interest or when other rights or liabilities may be affected by its determination.25 This exception requires a con- sideration of the public or private nature of the question pre- sented, the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future guidance of public officials, and the likelihood of futur | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Wilcox v. City of McCook
green
2 sentences2006Id. 2006Id. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Burbank v. Evnen
green
1 sentence2026Seeman v. Lower Republican NRD, 319 Neb. 681 , 24 N.W.3d 874 (2025). 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Saint Joseph Tower Assisted Living v. Royce, 320 Neb. 830 , 30 N.W.3d 838 (2026). 11 Id. 12 City of Hastings v. Sheets, 317 Neb. 88 , 8 N.W.3d 771 (2024). - 73 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports BURBANK v. EVNEN Cite as 321 Neb. 65 a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the action. 13 A moot case is one that seeks to determine a question that no longer rests upon existing facts or rights—i.e., a case in which the issues presented are no longer alive. 14 The central question in | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Sloan Ex Rel. State v. Friends of the Hunley, Inc.
green
2 sentences2026Co. v. Holcomb, supra note 2 (citing Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20 , 630 S.E.2d 474 (2006)). 8 See NP Dodge Mgmt. 2026Co. v. Holcomb, supra note 2 (citing Sloan v. Friends of Hunley, Inc., 369 S.C. 20 , 630 S.E.2d 474 (2006)). 8 See NP Dodge Mgmt. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State ex rel. Seeman v. Lower Republican NRD
neutral
1 sentence2026Seeman v. Lower Republican NRD, 319 Neb. 681 , 24 N.W.3d 874 (2025). 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Saint Joseph Tower Assisted Living v. Royce, 320 Neb. 830 , 30 N.W.3d 838 (2026). 11 Id. 12 City of Hastings v. Sheets, 317 Neb. 88 , 8 N.W.3d 771 (2024). - 73 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports BURBANK v. EVNEN Cite as 321 Neb. 65 a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the action. 13 A moot case is one that seeks to determine a question that no longer rests upon existing facts or rights—i.e., a case in which the issues presented are no longer alive. 14 The central question in | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Flinn v. Strode
neutral
1 sentence2026STRODE Cite as 320 Neb. 813 exception to the mootness doctrine, and in determining whether it applies in a given case, an appellate court is required to con- sider (1) the public or private nature of the question presented, (2) the desirability of an authoritative adjudication for the guidance of public officials, and (3) the likelihood of recur- rence of the same or a similar problem. 13 In this case, these three factors all weigh in favor of us addressing the meaning of a “legitimate purpose” under § 28-311.02(2)(a). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10880779
green
1 sentence2026Co., supra note 47; Putnam, supra note 53 . - 699 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports COMMON CAUSE v. EVNEN Cite as 321 Neb. 682 CONCLUSION Because Nebraska’s voter registration list has already been released to the DOJ, this matter is moot, and we decline to apply the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In re Guardianship of Tomas J.
green
1 sentence2025Cite as 318 Neb. 503 minor guardian, and he argues the issue is “capable of repeti- tion [so] this Court should give probate courts clear direction on [the] issue.” 56 We question Marvin’s assertion that there is confusion over the applicable legal standard for appointing minor guardians. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Pauly
green
2 sentences2025State v. Pauly, 311 Neb. 418 , 972 N.W.2d 907 (2022). 2025State v. Pauly, 311 Neb. 418 , 972 N.W.2d 907 (2022). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Applehans
green
1 sentence2023APPLEHANS Cite as 314 Neb. 653 a copy of the district court’s order. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Harig
green
2 sentences2023See, also, Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512, 518 , 949 N.W.2d 761, 767 (2020) (“[t]he central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief”); State v. Harig, 192 Neb. 49 , 218 N.W.2d 884 (1974) (issue of excessiveness of pretrial bail is not reviewable after conviction and sentence). - 662 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V. 2023See, also, Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512, 518 , 949 N.W.2d 761, 767 (2020) (“[t]he central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief”); State v. Harig, 192 Neb. 49 , 218 N.W.2d 884 (1974) (issue of excessiveness of pretrial bail is not reviewable after conviction and sentence). - 662 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Herring v. Herring green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Clement v. Clement neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| cluster 372524 green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Central Emergency Medical Services, Inc. v. State
green
2 sentences2019Such appeals do not present a justiciable issue because, given the coercive nature of civil contempt proceedings, once a finding of contempt has been fully purged and obedience with the order has been accomplished, there is no remaining con- troversy between the parties and no effective relief that can be afforded on appeal. 20 See Annot., 33 A.L.R.3d 448 § 26 (1970 & Supp. 2019) (and cases cited therein). 21 See, e.g., Belt v. Cabinet for Families, 520 S.W.3d 406 (Ky. App. 2017) (appeal of contempt proceedings arising out of failure to pay child support rendered moot when contemnor paid full 2019Such appeals do not present a justiciable issue because, given the coercive nature of civil contempt proceedings, once a finding of contempt has been fully purged and obedience with the order has been accomplished, there is no remaining con- troversy between the parties and no effective relief that can be afforded on appeal. 20 See Annot., 33 A.L.R.3d 448 § 26 (1970 & Supp. 2019) (and cases cited therein). 21 See, e.g., Belt v. Cabinet for Families, 520 S.W.3d 406 (Ky. App. 2017) (appeal of contempt proceedings arising out of failure to pay child support rendered moot when contemnor paid full | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Union Hill Homes Ass'n, Inc. v. RET DEVELOPMENT green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| cluster 298388 green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Yeager v. Yeager green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In the Matter of the Witness Charles G. Berry green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,547 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Samuel H. Sloan, Individually and D/B/A Samuel H. Sloan & Co. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Belt v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Families & Children green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| McFarland v. State green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Simms v. Friel green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In re Interest of Giavonni P. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Reap's Appeal neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Applied Underwriters v. S.E.B. Servs. of New York green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Courtney v. Jimenez green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| McDougle v. State ex rel. Bruning neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Hron v. Donlan green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| In re Interest of Shayla H. neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Orchard Hill Neighborhood Ass'n v. Orchard Hill Mercantile, L.L.C. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.
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.