Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
42 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 13 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 rendered 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 rendered 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 | 3 |
Yancer v. Kaufmangreen2 sentences2023See Yancer v. Kaufman, 22 Neb. 2015“If every error committed by a trial judge called into play the public interest exception, the mootness doctrine would be subsumed by the exception.” Yancer v. Kaufman, 22 Neb. | 2 | 3 |
Simms ex rel. Friel v. Frielgreen2 sentences2019See Simms v. Friel, 25 Neb. 2019See Simms v. Friel, 25 Neb. App. 640 , 911 N.W.2d 636 (2018). | 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 |
In re Interest of Nathaniel M.green2 sentences2021“The central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief.” Id. at 436-37 , 855 N.W.2d at 585. 2021“The central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief.” Id. at 436-37 , 855 N.W.2d at 585. | 1 | 3 |
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 |
Keading v. Keadinggreen2 sentences2025The court began by noting that “[a]ttachment is an ancillary or provisional remedy to aid in the collection of a money demand by seizure of property in advance of trial and judgment.” 57 The court then reasoned that even if the defendant was correct in his claims 53 City of Hastings v. Sheets, 317 Neb. 88 , 8 N.W.3d 771 (2024). 54 Id. 55 Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512 , 949 N.W.2d 761 (2020). 56 Keading v. Keading, 60 Cal. App. 5th 1115 , 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d 338 (2021). 57 Id. at 1130, 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 349 (unpublished portion) (internal quotation marks omitted). - 924 - Nebraska Supreme Cour 2025The court began by noting that “[a]ttachment is an ancillary or provisional remedy to aid in the collection of a money demand by seizure of property in advance of trial and judgment.” 57 The court then reasoned that even if the defendant was correct in his claims 53 City of Hastings v. Sheets, 317 Neb. 88 , 8 N.W.3d 771 (2024). 54 Id. 55 Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512 , 949 N.W.2d 761 (2020). 56 Keading v. Keading, 60 Cal. App. 5th 1115 , 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d 338 (2021). 57 Id. at 1130, 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 349 (unpublished portion) (internal quotation marks omitted). - 924 - Nebraska Supreme Cour | 1 | 1 |
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 litigation 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 litig 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 litigation 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 litig | 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 |
| In re Interest of Giavonni P.green | 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 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 a mootness analysis 2026Seeman 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 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 a mootness analysis | 4 | 2025–2026 |
NP Dodge Mgmt. Co. v. Holcomb
green
2 sentences2025Id. 2025Co. 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. | 3 | 2025–2025 |
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 appellate 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 beginning of litigation have fo 2025Appeal Not Moot [14-17] Although we are reviewing this proceeding for plain error, the question of mootness bears directly on our appellate 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 beginning of litigation have fo | 2 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Interest of Taylor
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). 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. | 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 |
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 |
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 |
Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Omaha
green
2 sentences2017But the central question in a mootness analysis is whether changes in circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any 5 Id. 6 Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659 , 825 N.W.2d 149 (2012). 7 Id.; Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Omaha, 282 Neb. 200 , 803 N.W.2d 17 (2011). 8 Blakely v. Lancaster County, supra note 6. 9 Greater Omaha Realty Co. v. City of Omaha, 258 Neb. 714 , 605 N.W.2d 472 (2000). - 252 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports APPLIED UNDERWRITERS v. S.E.B. 2015Public Interest Exception to Mootness A pplies [13,14] Unless an exception applies, a court or tribunal must dismiss a moot case when changed circumstances have precluded it from providing any meaningful relief because the litigants no longer have a legally cognizable interest in the dispute’s resolution.19 Nebraska recognizes a public inter- est exception to the mootness doctrine,20 and we consider its application here. [15,16] Under the public interest exception to mootness, we can review an otherwise moot case if it involves a matter affecting the public interest or when other rights or lia | 2 | 2015–2017 |
Wilcox v. City of McCook
green
2 sentences2006Id. 2006Id. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
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
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 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 a mootness analysis 2026Seeman 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 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 a mootness analysis | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Saint Joseph Tower Assisted Living v. Royce
neutral
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 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 a mootness analysis 2026Seeman 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 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 a mootness analysis | 1 | 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. 2025Co. 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. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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. 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 |
State v. Warner
green
2 sentences2021State v. Warner, 290 Neb. 954 , 863 N.W.2d 196 (2015). 2021State v. Warner, 290 Neb. 954 , 863 N.W.2d 196 (2015). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| 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 |
| Reap's Appeal neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Clement v. Clement neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Central Emergency Medical Services, Inc. v. State neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Union Hill Homes Ass'n, Inc. v. RET DEVELOPMENT green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Yeager v. Yeager green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Belt v. Commonwealth, Cabinet for Families & Children green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| McFarland v. State green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Bramble v. Bramble neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Herring v. Herring green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Courtney v. Jimenez green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Applied Underwriters v. S.E.B. Servs. of New York 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 |
| Green v. Lore neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Orchard Hill Neighborhood Ass'n v. Orchard Hill Mercantile, L.L.C. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Patterson green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Williams v. Hjorth green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.