(a) A court of this state may communicate with a court in another state concerning a proceeding arising under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.
(b) The court may allow the parties to participate in the communication. If the parties are not able to participate in the communication, they shall be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made.
(c) Communication between courts on schedules, calendars, court records, and similar matters may occur without informing the parties. A record need not be made of the communication.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c) of this section, a record shall be made of a communication under this section. The parties shall be informed promptly of the communication and granted access to the record.
(e) For the purposes of this section, record means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
2
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2020–2023 · leading case:
Kee v. Gilbert, 992 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).
Kee v. Gilbert, 992 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 14× “§ 43-1235 (Reissue 2016) does not require a verbatim transcription of the consultation between two courts after a hearing; rather, a sufficient record of the courts’ posthearing consultation is made when the courts enter orders memorializing the substance of their communication.”
Bryant v. Bryant, 28 Neb. Ct. App. 362 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “” In the order, the court recited that it had participated in a conference call with a judge from “the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court, Will County, Illinois,” pursu- ant to the UCCJEA, specifically Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1235 (c) (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1235(b) — 1 case
Kee v. Gilbert, 992 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).
“§ 43-1235 (Reissue 2016) does not require a verbatim transcription of the consultation between two courts after a hearing; rather, a sufficient record of the courts’ posthearing consultation is made when the courts enter orders memorializing the substance of their communication.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1235(d) — 1 case
Kee v. Gilbert, 992 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).
“§ 43-1235 (Reissue 2016) does not require a verbatim transcription of the consultation between two courts after a hearing; rather, a sufficient record of the courts’ posthearing consultation is made when the courts enter orders memorializing the substance of their communication.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1235(e) — 1 case
Kee v. Gilbert, 992 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).
“§ 43-1235 (Reissue 2016) does not require a verbatim transcription of the consultation between two courts after a hearing; rather, a sufficient record of the courts’ posthearing consultation is made when the courts enter orders memorializing the substance of their communication.”
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.