Whenever application for continuance or adjournment is made by a party or parties to any cause or proceeding pending in the district court of any county, such application shall be by written motion entitled in the cause or proceeding and setting forth the grounds upon which the application is made, which motion shall be supported by the affidavit or affidavits of person or persons competent to testify as witnesses under the laws of this state, in proof of and setting forth the facts upon which such continuance or adjournment is asked. After the filing of such application and the affidavits in support thereof, the adverse party shall have the right to file counter affidavits in the matter. Either party may, upon obtaining leave of the court, introduce oral testimony upon the hearing of such application. The court may, upon the hearing, in its discretion, grant or refuse such application, and no reversal of such cause or proceeding shall be had on account of the action of the court in granting or refusing such application except when there has been an abuse of a sound legal discretion by the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
61
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case:
State v. Chase, 310 Neb. 160 (Neb. 2021).
State v. Chase, 310 Neb. 160 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 11× “A trial court’s sua sponte decisions to delay trial are not governed by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1148 (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Brooks, 828 N.W.2d 496 (Neb. 2013).
· cites it 5× “Brooks claimed that he filed a written motion to continue in CR-11-2018 in conformance with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1148 (Reissue 2008).”
State v. Turner, 564 N.W.2d 231 (Neb. 1997).
· cites it 6× “(Reissue 1995); (3) the trial court repeatedly erred by continuing the trial date and by failing either to advise Turner of his right to a speedy trial and the effect of his consent to a period of delay or to ascertain on the record whether Turner waived his right to a speedy…”
State v. Perez, 457 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 1990).
· cites it 7× “See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1148 (Reissue 1989); State v.”
State v. Bruna, 686 N.W.2d 590 (Neb. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Motions for continuance are governed by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1148 (Reissue 1995), which provides: Whenever application for continuance or adjournment is made by a party or parties to any cause or proceeding pending in the district court of any county, such application shall be…”
In Re Interest of Azia B., 626 N.W.2d 602 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “Neb. Rev.Stat. § 25-1148 (Reissue 1998); Stewart v.”
State v. Roundtree, 658 N.W.2d 308 (Neb. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Roundtree points out that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1148 (Reissue 1995) requires that requests for a continuance be in a writing which sets forth the reasons for the continuance and requires that an affidavit be attached.”
State v. Davlin, 719 N.W.2d 243 (Neb. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Davlin concedes that his motion to continue trial was an oral motion rather than a written motion as required under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1148 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Shipler, 758 N.W.2d 41 (Neb. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Shipler argues that the State's method for seeking a continuance in this case did not comply with the requirements of Neb. Rev.Stat. § 25-1148 (Reissue 1995). That section provides: Whenever application for continuance or adjournment is made by a party or parties to any cause or…”
State v. Alvarez, 202 N.W.2d 604 (Neb. 1972).
· cites it 4× “, 1971, provides that applications for continuance must be made in accordance with section 25-1148, R.R.S.1943, "but in criminal cases in the district court the court shall grant a continuance only upon a showing of good cause and only for so long as is necessary.”
Williams v. Gould, Inc., 443 N.W.2d 577 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 3× “In the present case, however, appellants orally requested a continuance to obtain depositions pertaining to the issue of personal jurisdiction over Lerner.”
Gilroy v. Ryberg, 667 N.W.2d 544 (Neb. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Based on the sparse record Cynthia presents to us, we determine the court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion for a continuance. Neither the motion for a continuance nor the supporting affidavits appear in the record.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.