The motion for the writ must be made upon affidavit. The court may require a notice of the application to be given to the adverse party, may grant an order to show cause why it should not be allowed, or may grant the writ without notice. No peremptory writ of mandamus shall be allowed in any case involving the delivery of irrigation water if the Chief Water Officer, as defined in section 25-1062.01, is a party unless notice by either registered or certified mail has been given, as provided therein, seventy-two hours prior to the time of hearing to the Chief Water Officer and division supervisor in the water division created by section 61-212 in which the action is brought and to all appropriators whose rights to the delivery of water might in any manner be affected, of the time and place of the hearing. In such case, any person, natural or artificial, injured or likely to be injured by the granting of such writ, may intervene in such action at any stage of the proceedings and become a party to such litigation.
Notes of Decisions
State ex. rel. Malone v. Baldonado-Bellamy, 307 Neb. 549 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 14× “549 asserted additional defenses, including, inter alia, an assertion that Malone’s “Complaint is not made upon affidavit or veri- fied petition as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2160 .” Friend also filed an answer in which he generally denied that he had a duty under the…”
State Ex Rel. Shepherd v. Nebraska Equal Opportunity Comm'n, 557 N.W.2d 684 (Neb. 1997).
· cites it 4× “See Neb. Rev.Stat. § 25-2160 (Reissue 1995). "When the right to require the performance of the act is clear and it is apparent that no valid excuse can be given for not performing it, a peremptory mandamus may be allowed in the first instance.”
State Ex Rel. Krieger v. Bd. of Supervisors, 105 N.W.2d 721 (Neb. 1960).
· cites it 3× “See § 25-2160, R. R. S. 1943. When the right to the writ is clear, and it is apparent that no valid excuse can be given for failure to perform the duty, a peremptory writ should be issued.”
Little v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 140 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 1966).
· cites it 2× “Appellants urge that if we determine that a petition in error is not the proper remedy, that the pleadings are broad enough to permit mandamus or other appropriate relief.”
Burries v. Schmaderer, 30 Neb. Ct. App. 359 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “[4] One such procedural requirement for a writ of manda- mus is delineated in § 25-2160, which provides, in part, that “[t]he motion for the writ [of mandamus] must be made upon affidavit.”
Mason v. Lincoln Police Dept. (Neb. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “One such procedural requirement for a writ of mandamus is delineated in § 25-2160, which provides, in part, that “[t]he motion for the writ [of mandamus] must be made upon affidavit.”
Burries v. Schmaderer, 30 Neb. Ct. App. 359 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 3× “[4] One such procedural requirement for a writ of manda- mus is delineated in § 25-2160, which provides, in part, that “[t]he motion for the writ [of mandamus] must be made upon affidavit.”
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.