(1) In all cases the district court shall review the case for error appearing on the record made in the county court. The district court shall render a judgment which may affirm, affirm but modify, or reverse the judgment or final order of the county court. If the district court reverses, it may enter judgment in accordance with its findings or remand the case to the county court for further proceedings consistent with the judgment of the district court. Within two judicial days after the decision of the district court becomes final, the clerk of the district court shall issue a mandate in appeals from the county court and transmit the mandate in appeals to the clerk of the county court on the form prescribed by the Supreme Court together with a copy of such decision.
(2) The ordering, preparing, signing, filing, correcting, and amending of the bill of exceptions shall be governed by the rules of practice prescribed by the Supreme Court.
(3) The judgment of the district court shall vacate the judgment in the county court. The taxation of costs in the district court shall include the costs in the county court. If a judgment of the county court is affirmed or affirmed but modified, interest on the amount of the judgment in the district court that does not exceed the amount of the judgment in the county court shall run from the date of entry of the judgment appealed from the county court.
Notes of Decisions
McEwen v. Nebraska State Coll. Sys., 303 Neb. 552 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 8× “111 And the language in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2733 (Reissue 2016) directly contradicts the core holding of Goodman in the context of appeals from county court to district court.”
State v. Thalken, 299 Neb. 857 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 2× “68 See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2733 (Reissue 2016) and State v.”
State v. McGinn, 303 Neb. 224 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2733 (3) (Reissue 2016), the judgment of the district court vacates the judgment in the county court and thus only the district court's judgment is reviewable by this court.”
State v. Jennings, 308 Neb. 835 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 4× “the State has not cross-appealed and has not assigned as error that determination. At oral argument, the State contended that [it] did not need to appeal the district court’s admissi- bility determination, because the district court ultimately affirmed McGinn’s conviction on…”
State v. Hausmann, 765 N.W.2d 219 (Neb. 2009).
· cites it 2× “[44] See, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-2733 (Cum. Supp. 2006); State v.”
Champion v. Hall Cnty., 309 Neb. 55 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 2× “16 See § 25-1901, § 25-1911, and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2733 (Reissue 2016).”
In Re Adoption of Kassandra B., 540 N.W.2d 554 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 4× “COUNTY COURT'S DECISION The county court determined that Gomez was unfit to properly care for Kassandra and Nicholas and that it would be in the best interests of the children to award custody to K.E.S.I.L., thereby approving the Savages' petition for adoption.”
State v. Beyer, 619 N.W.2d 213 (Neb. 2000).
· cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2733 (Reissue 1995) provides for the issuance of mandates from district court to county court.”
State v. Bartel, 308 Neb. 169 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 2× “5 An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable, or when its action is clearly against justice, conscience, reason, or evidence.”
McClellan v. Bd. of Equalization, 748 N.W.2d 66 (Neb. 2008).
· cites it 2× “, § 25-1911; Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-2733 (Reissue 1995). [37] See §§ 25-1901, 25-1911, and 25-2733.”
State v. Erlewine, 452 N.W.2d 764 (Neb. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Under the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-2733 and 25-1911 (Reissue 1989), the district court and the Nebraska Supreme Court generally shall review appeals from the county court for error appearing on the record.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2733(1) — 6 cases
McEwen v. Nebraska State Coll. Sys., 303 Neb. 552 (Neb. 2019).
“111 And the language in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2733 (Reissue 2016) directly contradicts the core holding of Goodman in the context of appeals from county court to district court.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2733(2) — 3 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2733(3) — 2 cases
McEwen v. Nebraska State Coll. Sys., 303 Neb. 552 (Neb. 2019).
“111 And the language in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2733 (Reissue 2016) directly contradicts the core holding of Goodman in the context of appeals from county court to district court.”
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.