Statute Annotations › Nebraska › Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106

Court of Appeals jurisdiction and caseload: the cases that interpreted this section

Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Case notes
11
Cited in passing
868
Citing cases indexed
906
Case dates
1994–2024
Screened through
2026-06-18
Courts' treatment: live
No reviewed case has held this section invalid, preempted, superseded or repealed.
This reflects what the reviewed cases said, not legislative action: a later amendment or repeal by the legislature would not appear here unless a reviewed case discussed it.

879 citing cases reviewed of 906 in the citation index: 11 interpreted the section (annotated below), 868 cited it only in passing. Cases filed after 2026-06-18 may not have been reviewed yet.

Have a situation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106?

These notes show how courts have ruled. Ask about your specific facts and see which of these rulings apply, with citations you can check.

Jurisdiction over constitutional challenges

Section 24-1106(1) bars the Nebraska Court of Appeals from deciding a statute’s constitutionality, but permits it to decide whether a constitutional challenge was properly raised.

Bartunek v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co. · filed 1994-03-01(1)

While we recognize that the Nebraska Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of a statute, see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(1) (Cum. Supp. 1992), this court may, when necessary to the decision in the case before us, determine whether a constitutional question has properly been raised.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 24-1106(1) limits the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction to decide whether a statute is constitutional.

State v. Watkins · filed 1996-02-13(1)

This court must operate as though the statute is constitutional, because this court does not have jurisdiction to decide the constitutionality of a statute. Neb. Const, art. V, § 2; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(1) (Cum. Supp. 1994).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 24-1106 permits the Court of Appeals to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of an ordinance; its exception for challenges to statutes does not apply.

State v. Champoux · filed 1996-10-15

Section 24-1106 does not except from the jurisdiction of this court consideration of the constitutionality of an ordinance.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 24-1106(1) prevents the Court of Appeals from deciding whether a statute is constitutional.

Teters v. Scottsbluff Public Schools · filed 1997-07-15(1)

Teters cross-appeals, contending that the Act is unconstitutional. However, this court does not have jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of a statute. Neb. Const, art. V, § 2; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(1) (Reissue 1995). We therefore assume that the Act is constitutional without considering the question.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 24-1106 prevents the Court of Appeals from deciding challenges to the constitutionality of statutes.

In Re Interest of Juan L. · filed 1998-03-17

And to the extent the Department’s arguments concern the constitutionality of statutes, this court has no jurisdiction to make such determinations. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106 (Reissue 1995).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 24-1106 limits the Court of Appeals’ authority to decide the constitutionality of statutes, but permits it to determine when necessary whether a constitutional question was properly raised.

In Interest of David C. · filed 1997-11-25

Additionally, to the extent the Department’s arguments concern the constitutionality of statutes, this court has no jurisdiction to make such determinations. However, this court may, when necessary to the decision of the case before us, determine whether a constitutional question has properly been raised.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 24-1106 permits the Court of Appeals to consider the constitutionality of a municipal ordinance; its exception for constitutional challenges to statutes does not cover ordinances.

State v. Ruisi · filed 2000-07-11

Section 24-1106 does not except from the jurisdiction of this court consideration of the constitutionality of an ordinance.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 24-1106 prevents the Nebraska Court of Appeals from considering whether a statute is unconstitutional.

State v. Obst · filed 2003-10-14

This court has no authority to consider the unconstitutionality of a statute. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106 (Reissue 1995); Neb. Const. art. V, § 2.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 24-1106(1) does not require an appeal to bypass the Court of Appeals merely because a party raises an insubstantial constitutional challenge to a statute.

State v. Nelson · filed 2007-10-05(1)

But we do not read § 24-1106(1) to require that all constitutional arguments, no matter how insubstantial, bypass review by the Court of Appeals.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Section 24-1106(1) sends appeals genuinely involving a statute’s constitutionality directly to the Nebraska Supreme Court; merely asserting a constitutional challenge does not divest the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction.

Daubenmier v. Spence · filed 2008-02-19(1)

However, the mere assertion that a statute may be unconstitutional does not automatically deprive the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction over the case. ... Rather, for a claim concerning the constitutionality of a statute to deprive the Nebraska Court of Appeals of jurisdiction, a variety of other requirements must be met.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Petitions to bypass the Court of Appeals

A party petitioning to bypass Court of Appeals review should identify how the appeal implicates the factors in § 24-1106(2).

State v. Boeggeman · filed 2024-05-10(2)

A party petitioning to bypass review by the Court of Appeals should identify how the appeal implicates the factors set out in § 24-1106(2).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
868 more cases cited this section only in passing

These cases mention the section without interpreting it (a string cite, a footnote, background). Listed so you can see the full citation record, not just the annotated rulings.

State v. DeGroat, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain how the appeal came before it; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State on Behalf of SM v. Oglesby, the court cites § 24-1106(1) only to explain why the appeal came directly to it; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Sabatka v. Sabatka, the court cites the section as authority to move the appeal to its docket, but decides the child support dispute rather than the section’s rules. opinion →
Rigel Corp. v. Cutchall, the court cited § 24-1106(3) to explain how the appeal reached it, without deciding any rule of that section. opinion →
Zetterman v. Zetterman, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for taking the appeal; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Lincoln Branch, Inc. v. City of Lincoln, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority to remove the appeal but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Palmtag v. Gartner Construction Co., the court invokes the section to transfer the appeal but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Vosburg v. Cenex-Land O'Lakes Agronomy Co., the court used § 24-1106(2) to bypass the Court of Appeals but did not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
MacKiewicz v. JJ & ASSOCIATES, the court cites the section only as the route for bypassing the Court of Appeals; it does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
Vacanti v. Master Electronics Corp., the court cites the section as authority for taking the appeal but decides no rule of the section. opinion →
Mackiewicz v. J.J. & Associates, the court cites § 24-1106(2) only to explain how the appeal reached it; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Kearns, the court cites this section only to explain how the appeal came before it; it does not decide a rule of the section. opinion →
Whitehead Oil Co. v. City of Lincoln, the court invokes the section as authority to transfer the case but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Whitehead Oil Co. v. City of Lincoln, the court cites the section as authority to remove the appeal, but decides no rule of the section. opinion →
Hoiengs v. County of Adams, the court cites the section as authority for moving the case to itself but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
County of Douglas v. Parks, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for transferring the appeal but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Horvath v. M.S.P. Resources, Inc., the court cites the section as authority to take the appeal but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Carpender v. Bendorf, the court cites the section as authority for transferring the appeal but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Styskal v. Wright, the court cites this section as authority to take the appeal but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Bradley v. Hopkins, the court cites § 24-1106 only to explain why the appeal was docketed there; it does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
Merrick v. Thomas, the court invokes § 24-1106(3) to bring the appeal before it but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Laschanzky v. Laschanzky, the court cites the section as authority for removing the appeal to its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Dean, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal was docketed there, but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Martin, the court cites the section as authority to move the appeal but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Future Motels, Inc. v. Custer County Board of Equalization, the court used § 24-1106(3) to bring the appeal before it but decided the case under § 77-1510; it did not decide a rule of § 24-1106(3). opinion →
WBE Co. v. Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District, the court uses the section to transfer the appeal to itself but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Brunzo, the court cites the section as the route for a direct appeal but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Horace Mann Companies v. Pinaire, the court cited this section only as authority to remove the appeal; it decided the insurance dispute under other law. opinion →
Baker's Supermarkets, Inc. v. State, the court invoked § 24-1106(3) to move the appeal to its docket but did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Blackbird v. SDB INVESTMENTS, the court uses the section to take the appeal, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Scott v. Pepsi Cola Co., the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for removing the appeal to itself; it decides the notice issue under § 48-133, not a rule of § 24-1106. opinion →
Paulsen v. State, the court cites the section as authority to take the appeal but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Metro Renovation, Inc. v. State Department of Labor, the court cites the section to describe Nebraska's appellate structure while deciding the precedential effect of Court of Appeals opinions; it does not decide a rule of § 24-1106. opinion →
State v. White, the court cites § 24-1106(1) only to explain why the appeal was docketed there; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Stubblefield, the court cites § 24-1106 only to explain how the case reached it; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Garber, the court cites § 24-1106 as authority for the appeal but decides no rule of that section. opinion →
Cords v. City of Lincoln, the court invokes the section to take the appeal but decides no rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Beethe, the court used § 24-1106 to bring the appeal before it but decided no rule of that section. opinion →
Southern Neb. v. Neb. Elec. Generation, the court invokes § 24-1106 to remove the appeal but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Southern Nebraska Rural Public Power District v. Nebraska Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative, Inc., the court invokes § 24-1106 to remove the appeal, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Keys v. Department of Motor Vehicles, the court invokes § 24-1106 to take the appeal, but decides the breath-test issue under other law rather than deciding this section's rules. opinion →
State v. Atkins, the court cites § 24-1106 as authority for the appeal but decides the good-time rules in § 47-502, not § 24-1106’s jurisdictional rules. opinion →
Menkens v. Finley, the court cites the section to explain the transfer of this appeal to its docket; it does not decide a rule under the section. opinion →
Burke v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Neb., the court uses the section to move the appeal to its docket but decides no rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Glantz, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket, without deciding the section’s rules. opinion →
Metropolitan Utilities District v. Balka, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it moved the case to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Vilcinskas v. Johnson, the court mentions the section only to explain how the case reached its docket; it does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Bachman v. Easy Parking of America, Inc., the court cites the section to explain its transfer of the case, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Dyer v. Hastings Industries, Inc., the court cites the section as authority to take the appeal, but decides no rule of the section. opinion →
Concordia Teachers College v. Nebraska Department of Labor, the court invoked § 24-1106(3) to move the case to its docket but did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
In Re Interest of Tabatha R., the court cites § 24-1106 only to explain why the appeal was docketed in the Supreme Court; it does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
Kindred v. City of Omaha Employees' Retirement System, the court cites the section as authority for placing the appeal on its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
McGurk v. Stenberg, the court describes § 24-1106 as background for its decision about federal habeas exhaustion and procedural default; it does not decide a dispute about the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Buechler, the court cites § 24-1106 to explain where the appeal was docketed; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Darrah v. Bryan Memorial Hospital, the court cites the section as authority for placing the appeal on its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Arnold, the section explains why the appeal was docketed directly in this court; the court does not decide a disputed rule under the section. opinion →
Starks v. Cornhusker Packing Co., the court cited the section to explain why it removed the case to its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
POPPLE BY POPPLE v. Rose, the court invokes § 24-1106 to explain why it removed the case, but decides the parental duty to warn rather than this section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Torres, the court cites § 24-1106 as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
Chalupa v. Chalupa, the court cites § 24-1106 only to explain why the case is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Dvorak, the court cites § 24-1106 only as authority for direct review; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska Ex Rel. University of Nebraska-Lincoln v. Pinzon, the court cites § 24-1106 to explain how the case came before it; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Fiscel v. Beach, the court cites the section to explain why it removed the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Schram Enterprises, Inc. v. L & H Properties, Inc., the court cites the section as authority for placing the appeal on its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Hunt, the court cites the section to explain why the case is on its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Cheloha v. Cheloha, the court cites the section only to explain how the case reached its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
O'CONNOR v. Kaufman, the citation describes the transfer of an earlier appeal; the court decides finality under § 25-1902, not a rule of § 24-1106. opinion →
In RE McLEOD TELEMANAGEMENT, INC., the court cites the section only to explain why it placed the appeal on its docket; it does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
McLeod Telemanagement, Inc. v. U S West Communications, Inc., the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
DeCoste v. City of Wahoo, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it took the case onto its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Foreman v. AS Mid-America, Inc., the court cited the section to explain why the appeal was on its docket, without deciding the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Larsen, the court cites the section to explain where the appeal was docketed; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Doe v. Zedek, the court cites the section to explain why the case is on its docket, but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Kratochvil v. Motor Club Ins. Ass'n, the court cited § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it took the appeal onto its docket; it did not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
NEB. ACCOUNTABILITY COM'N v. Citizens, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain how the case reached its docket, but decides no rule of that section. opinion →
Daily v. BD. OF EDUC. OF MORRILL SCHOOL DIST., the court cites § 24-1106(1) only to explain why the appeal was on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Daily v. Board of Education, the court cites § 24-1106(1) only to explain why the case was moved to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Nebraska Accountability & Disclosure Commission v. Citizens for Responsible Judges, the court cited the section to explain how the case reached its docket, without deciding the section’s rules. opinion →
Nelson v. City of Omaha, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the case is on its docket, but decides no rule of that section. opinion →
Reinke Manufacturing Co. v. Hayes, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it took the appeal onto its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Moore, the court cites § 24-1106 to explain why the appeal was on its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
In Re Interest of William G., the court cited the section as authority for placing the appeal on its docket but did not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Gress v. Gress, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it took the appeal onto its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Hernandez v. Blankenship, the court cited § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Tipp-It, Inc. v. Conboy, the court cites § 24-1106 only as the basis for granting the petition to bypass; it does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
NECO, Inc. v. Larry Price & Associates, Inc., the court cites the section to explain how the appeal reached its docket, without deciding any rule under the section. opinion →
State v. Kevin R., the court cites the section to explain why it took the case onto its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Prime Realty Development, Inc. v. City of Omaha, the court cited § 24-1106(3) only to explain why the case was on its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Johnson v. Clarke, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the case is on its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Pittman v. Sarpy County Board of Equalization, the court cited § 24-1106(3) to explain why the case was on its docket, but did not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Streeks, Inc. v. Diamond Hill Farms, Inc., the court cites § 24-1106(2) only to explain how the appeal reached it; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Lara, the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but decides no rule of the section. opinion →
Kalkowski v. Kalkowski, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal was transferred to its docket, but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Lackawanna Leather Co. v. Nebraska Department of Revenue, the court cites this section only to explain why it took the appeal; it decides no rule of the section. opinion →
Brown v. Kindred, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the case, but decides the meaning of § 25-213, not a rule of § 24-1106. opinion →
Armour v. L.H., the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket, but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Ramsey v. State, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but decides no rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Tucker, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Norman Ex Rel. Norman v. Ogallala Public School District, the court cites the section to explain why the case is on its docket, but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Beachy v. Becerra, the court cites the section only to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide a rule of the section. opinion →
Hron v. Donlan, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but decides mootness rather than the section’s rules. opinion →
State Ex Rel. Z. P. v. Porter, the court cites the section to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket, but decides no rule under the section. opinion →
Brown Ex Rel. Watts v. Social Settlement Ass'n, the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Sherrets, Smith & Gardner, P.C. v. MJ Optical, Inc., the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but decides no rule of the section. opinion →
Phipps v. Skyview Farms, Inc., the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Lobato, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why the case is on its docket; it decides the sentencing issues under other statutes. opinion →
Hauser v. Hauser, the court cites the section to explain how the appeal reached it, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
McQuinn v. Douglas County School District No. 66, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. McCroy, the court cites this section to explain how the appeals reached its docket, but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Fraternal Order of Police v. County of Douglas, the court cites the section to explain how the appeal reached its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Allied Mut. v. MIDPLAINTS WASTE MANAGEMENT, the court cites the section only to explain why it moved the case to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Allied Mutual Insurance v. Midplains Waste Management, L.L.C., the court cites the section to explain how the appeal reached its docket, without deciding the section’s rules. opinion →
Bartlett v. DAWES COUNTY BD. OF EQUAL., the court cites the section to explain how the appeal reached it, without deciding any rule of the section. opinion →
Bartlett v. Dawes County Board of Equalization, the court cites the section only to explain how the appeal reached it; it decides no rule of the section. opinion →
Nickell v. Russell, the court cites the section to explain why the case is on its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Bowers v. Dougherty, the court cites the section as authority for moving the case to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Doksansky v. Norwest Bank Nebraska, N.A., the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Shriners Hospital for Children v. Domeier, the court cites the section only to explain why it took the appeal onto its docket; it does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
Lancaster County School District No. 0001 v. State, the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
ALEGENT HEALTH BERGAN MERCY MED. v. Haworth, the court mentions § 24-1106(2) only to describe how the appeal reached it; it does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
Alegent Health Bergan Mercy Medical Center v. Hawort, the court cites § 24-1106(2) only to describe how the appeal reached it; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Adkins v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, the court cited § 24-1106(3) to explain why the case was on its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
County of Lancaster v. Union Bank & Trust Co., the court cites the section to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Weinand v. Weinand, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Sharkey v. Board of Regents, the court cited the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket, but did not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
O'CONNOR v. Kaufman, the court cites the section as authority for moving the case to its docket but does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
State v. Abbink, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeals to its docket, but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Mid City Bank, Inc. v. Douglas County Board of Equalization, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Prucha v. Kahlandt, the court cites § 24-1106(2) only to explain how the case reached it; it does not decide that section’s rules. opinion →
Turney v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Beyer, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why the case is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Guico v. Excel Corp., the court cites the section only as authority to move the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Gage County Board of Equalization v. Nebraska Tax Equalization & Review Commission, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Pleiss v. Barnes, the court cites the section only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
In Re Adoption of Hemmer, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain how the appeal reached it, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Hamilton v. Foster, the court cites the section only as authority to move the case to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Campbell, the court cites the section to explain why the case is on its docket but decides no rule of the section. opinion →
Weiss v. Weiss, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for placing the appeal on its docket but decides whether the district court abused its discretion in denying a continuance. opinion →
Jacob v. Schlichtman, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
Village of Winslow v. Sheets, the court cited the section only to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Pursley v. Pursley, the court cites the section as authority to take the case onto its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
North Bend Senior Citizens Home, Inc. v. Cook, the court cites the section to explain how the case reached its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
JB Contracting Servs. v. UNIVERSAL SUR., the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Simons v. Simons, the court cited § 24-1106(3) to explain why the case was on its docket, but did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
J.B. Contracting Services, Inc. v. Universal Surety Co., the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Spear v. Norwest Bank Nebraska, N.A., the court cited the section to explain why the case was on its docket; it did not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Honda Cars of Bellevue v. American Honda Motor Co., the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for placing the appeal on its docket but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Hatcher v. Bellevue Volunteer Fire Dept., the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain how the appeal reached its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Nalezinek v. Union Bank & Trust Co., the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Cerny v. Cedar Bluffs Junior/Senior Public School, the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
In Re 3628 v. Street, the court cited the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but did not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Wilcox v. City of McCook, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why the case is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Malone v. American Business Information, the court cited § 24-1106(3) to explain why it took the appeal onto its docket, but did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Hamik, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the case is on its docket, but decides the sentencing issues under other statutes. opinion →
Ruzicka v. Ruzicka, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Russell v. Stricker, the court cited § 24-1106(3) to explain why the case was on its docket, but did not decide the section's rules. opinion →
Paulk v. Central Laboratory Associates, P.C., the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Rhea, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the case to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Hawkins, the court cites the section as authority to place the case on its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Knudtson, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the case is on its docket; it decides the speedy trial issue, not the section’s own rules. opinion →
Ohio Casualty Insurance v. Carman Cartage Co., the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. VanAckeren, the court cites § 24-1106 only as authority for moving the case to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
In Re Interest of Destiny S., the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Premium Farms v. County of Holt, the court cites § 24-1106(2) only to explain how the appeal reached it; it decides no rule of that section. opinion →
Salkin v. Jacobsen, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Al-Zubaidy, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it took the appeal, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Bauerle v. Bauerle, the court cites the section to explain why the case is on its docket, but decides no rule of that section. opinion →
Fu v. State, the court cited the section only to explain how the appeal reached its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. George, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Russell v. Bridgens, the court cites the section only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Lopez v. IBP, Inc., the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Richmond v. Case, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
In Re Estate of Krumwiede, the court cites the section to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
DLH, Inc. v. Lancaster County Board of Commissioners, the court cited § 24-1106(3) to explain why it took the appeal onto its docket, but decided the meaning of § 53-134(6), not a rule of § 24-1106. opinion →
State v. Jackson, the court cited the section to establish jurisdiction over the appeal, but did not decide a rule of the section. opinion →
American Family Mutual Insurance v. Hadley, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the case to its docket; it does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
In Re Interest of Anthony R., the court cited § 24-1106(3) as authority to move the case to its docket, but did not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Tyma, the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Dandridge, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the case to its docket, but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Neff Towing Service, Inc. v. United States Fire Insurance, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket but decides no rule under the section. opinion →
Jacobson v. Solid Waste Agency, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
American Legion Post 52 v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, the court cites the section as authority for placing the appeal on its docket, but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Nauenburg v. Lewis, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the cases are on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
HANDLOS v. County of Lancaster, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Keller v. Tavarone, the court cited the section to explain why it took the appeal, but did not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Breeden v. Anesthesia West, P.C., the court cites the section as authority for moving the case to its docket but does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
Bailey v. Lund-Ross Constructors Co., the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it moved the case to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Kelley, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket but does not decide a rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Lee, the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Agri Affiliates, Inc. v. Bones, the court cites the section to explain why the case is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Fox v. Nick, the court cites the section as authority for moving the case to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Cerny v. Longley, the court cites the section to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Foster v. Foster, the court cited § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
DLH, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, the court cites the section as authority for placing the appeal on its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Salazar v. Scotts Bluff County, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the case to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Poe, the court cited this section only as authority for granting the bypass petition; it decided no rule of § 24-1106. opinion →
Perry Lumber Co. v. Durable Services, Inc., the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Reed, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Rodehorst v. Gartner, the court mentions the section only to explain how the appeals reached its docket; it does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Diaz, the court cited § 24-1106(1) only to explain why it took the case; its decision concerned § 60-6,211. opinion →
Gase v. Gase, the court cites the section to explain why the case is on its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Martin v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the case is on its docket, but does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
Gast v. Peters, the court cites the section only to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Pennfield Oil Co. v. Winstrom, the court cites the section to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket, but decides no rule of the section. opinion →
Heistand v. Heistand, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain how the appeal reached its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Misle v. HJA, INC., the court invokes § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Matteson Ex Rel. Matteson v. Matteson, the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Swanson v. Ptak, the court cites the section only to explain how the appeal reached its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Demerath v. Knights of Columbus, the court cites the section only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. McDermott, the court cites the section only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Brown, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Holm v. Holm, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Burke Ex Rel. Burke v. McKay, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
In Re Petition of Omaha Public Power Dist., the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the case to its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Hall, the court cites the section to explain how the appeal reached it, but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Tri-Par Investments, L.L.C. v. Sousa, the court cites the section as authority for moving the case to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Kubik v. Kubik, the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket, but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Miller v. Steichen, the court cites the section to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket, without deciding any rule of the section. opinion →
Welvaert v. Nebraska State Patrol, the court cited § 24-1106(1) to explain how the appeal reached it, but did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Slansky v. Nebraska State Patrol, the court cited the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but did not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Webb v. American Employers Group, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Nebraska Public Power District v. Department of Natural Resources, the court cited the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but did not decide any rule under it. opinion →
City of Gordon v. Ruse, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but decides no rule of that section. opinion →
Semler v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., the court invokes the section to move the case to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
In Re Brian B., the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Justine R., the court cites the section to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Swoboda v. Volkman Plumbing & EMCASCO Insurance, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Marshall, the court cited the section as authority to move the appeal to its docket but did not decide any rule under the section. opinion →
24TH & DODGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. Acceptance Ins. Co., the court cites the section only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
State v. Allen, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
24th & Dodge Ltd. Partnership v. Acceptance Insurance, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Lein v. Nesbitt, the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeals to its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Weeder v. Central Community College, the court cites the section to explain why it moved the case to its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Livingston v. Metropolitan Utilities District, the court cites the section to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket, without deciding the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. King, the court cited the section to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
In Re Trust Created by Inman, the court cites the section to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket, without deciding the section’s rules. opinion →
Stevens v. Downing, Alexander, Wood & Ilg, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
H & R Block Tax Services, Inc. v. Circle a Enterprises, Inc., the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
DESTINY 98 TD v. Miodowski, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Verling, the court cited § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Waste Connections of Nebraska, Inc. v. City of Lincoln, the court cites the section as authority for bypassing the Court of Appeals but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Salts v. Lancaster County, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeal is on its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Bauer v. Bedient, the court cited the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but did not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Hahn v. Neth, the court cites the section only to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Molina v. American Alternative Ins. Corp., the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket, but decides no rule of that section. opinion →
Brunk v. Nebraska State Racing Commission, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeals are on its docket, without deciding the section’s rules. opinion →
Eicher v. Mid America Financial Investment Corp., the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeals to its docket but does not decide a rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Hughan, the court cites § 24-1106 to explain where the appeal is docketed; it decides the constitutional right to appointed counsel, not this section’s rules. opinion →
Kant v. Altayar, the court cited § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Collett v. Collett, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain how the appeal reached its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Calkins Ex Rel. Antonio S. v. Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority to move the appeal to its docket, but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Strunk v. Chromy-Strunk, the court cited the section to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Douglas County Ex Rel. Douglas County Assessor's Office v. Kowal, the court mentions its authority to move the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of § 24-1106. opinion →
Borley Storage & Transfer Co. v. Whitted, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Lambert v. Holmberg, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but decides no rule under the section. opinion →
Carruth v. State, the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Lamar Co. of Nebraska, L.L.C. v. Omaha Zoning Board of Appeals, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Wise v. Omaha Public Schools, the court cited § 24-1106(3) as authority to move the appeal to its docket, but decided no rule of that section. opinion →
Roth v. Wiese, the court cites subsection (3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but decides no rule of the section. opinion →
Zach v. Eacker, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket, but decides the death-benefit dispute under § 81-2026(3). opinion →
State v. Taylor, the court cites § 24-1106 to describe where the direct appeal was docketed; it decides the right to counsel for further review, not this section’s rules. opinion →
Pachunka v. Rogers Construction, Inc., the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
INA GROUP, LLC v. Young, the court cited the section as authority for moving the appeals to its docket but did not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Lovette v. Stonebridge Life Insurance, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Keen, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Moore, the citation appears in a quotation from an earlier opinion describing where that appeal was docketed, not in this court's decision about § 24-1106. opinion →
Ferer v. Erickson & Sederstrom, PC, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it took the appeal onto its docket; it does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
Crouse v. Pioneer Irrigation District, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Deckard, the court cited the section to explain why the appeal was on its docket, but did not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Millatmal v. Millatmal, the court cites the section only to explain why the case is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. King, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
Watson v. Watson, the court cites the section to explain how the appeal reached its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Peterson v. Ohio Casualty Group, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for placing the appeal on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Brodine v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NE, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
Brodine v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Barnes, the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
D'QUAIX v. Chadron State College, the court cites the section as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
In Re Adoption of Kenten H., the court cites the section to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Brandon M., the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
In Re Trust of Rosenberg, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Doe v. Omaha Public School District, the court cites § 24-1106(2) only to explain how the appeal reached it; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Johnson v. Knox County Partnership, the court cites the section to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Knapp v. Village of Beaver City, the court cited § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Chase 3000, Inc. v. NEBRASKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the case to its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Geddes v. York County, the court cited § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Farmland Foods, Inc. v. State, the court cited § 24-1106(3) for moving the appeal to its docket, but decided no rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Gozzola, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority to move the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Bakewell, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Cumming v. RED WILLOW SCHOOL DIST., the court used § 24-1106(2) only to identify the basis for bypassing the Court of Appeals; it did not decide the section's rules. opinion →
Cumming v. Red Willow School District No. 179, the court reports granting a bypass petition but does not decide any rule of § 24-1106; the section appears only in a supporting footnote. opinion →
State v. Thurman, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the case to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
PLATTE VALLEY NAT. BANK & TRUST v. Lasen, the court cites the section only to explain the transfer of the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
Platte Valley National Bank & Trust Co. v. Lasen, the court cites this section to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but decides whether the revivor order is appealable under other statutes. opinion →
In Re Adoption of Kailynn D., the court cited § 24-1106(3) as authority to move the appeal to its docket, but did not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Miner, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Hauptman, O'Brien, Wolf & Lathrop, P.C. v. Turco, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Jackson v. BROTHERHOOD'S REL. & COMP. FUND, the court cites the section as authority for transferring the appeal but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Jackson v. Brotherhood's Relief & Compensation Fund, the court cites the section to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Hughes v. Omaha Public Power District, the opinion gives only bare citations to § 24-1106, with no sentence deciding what the section means or requires. opinion →
Koch v. Aupperle, the opinion cites § 24-1106(2) only for jurisdiction and decides no rule of that section. The citation is bare, so question 3 is also no. opinion →
Koch v. Aupperle, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Omaha Police Union Local 101 v. City of Omaha, the only reference to § 24-1106(3) is a bare footnote citation; the court states no rule about that section. opinion →
Snyder v. Department of Motor Vehicles, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the case to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Karel v. Nebraska Health Systems, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide a rule of the section. opinion →
Jones v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Companies, the court mentions its grant of a bypass petition but does not decide any rule of § 24-1106. opinion →
Sweem v. American Fidelity Life Assurance Co., the court cited § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeal was on its docket, without deciding the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. McLeod, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket and does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Security National Bank v. Rickert, the court cited § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but did not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
S.L. Ex Rel. Susan L. v. Steven L., the court cites § 24-1106(3) only for its grant of a petition to bypass; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Jackson, the court cited § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
In Re Interest of Matthew P., the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Wolski v. Wandel, the court mentions its statutory authority to move the appeal to its docket but decides only the professional negligence claim, not § 24-1106's rules. opinion →
Hofferber v. City of Hastings, the court invoked § 24-1106(3) to move the appeal to its docket but did not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Aon Consulting v. Midlands Financial, the court does not decide any rule of § 24-1106; it appears only in a footnote citation. opinion →
Niemoller v. City of Papillion, the court cites the section only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
CRANE SALES & SERVICE CO. v. Seneca Ins. Co., the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Pick v. Norfolk Anesthesia, PC, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it took the appeal, but does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
State v. Claussen, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY v. Nebraska Dept. of Revenue, the court cited § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket, but did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
In Re Interest of Taylor, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why the appeals are on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State Ex Rel. Wagner v. Gilbane Bldg. Co., the court invokes § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket, but does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
State v. Wenke, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket, but decides no rule of that section. opinion →
Yoder v. Cotton, the court cites § 24-1106 to explain how the case reached its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Loves v. World Ins. Co., the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
State v. Nelson, the court invoked § 24-1106(3) to move the appeal to its docket but did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State Ex Rel. Lanman v. BOARD OF CTY. COMM'RS OF DAWSON CTY., the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
OMNI Behavioral Health v. Nebraska Foster Care Review Bd., the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Berrington Corp. v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why the appeal is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
CINGLE v. State, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Lasu, the court invoked § 24-1106(3) to move the proceeding to its docket but did not decide the section's rules. opinion →
Kuhn v. WELLS FARGO BANK OF NEBRASKA, the court cites § 24-1106(2) while choosing to address additional issues, but does not decide the section’s own rules. opinion →
Conley v. Brazer, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
State v. YOS-CHIGUIL, the court cited § 24-1106(3) only as authority to move the appeal to its docket; it did not decide that section’s rules. opinion →
Miller v. REGIONAL WEST MEDICAL CENTER, the court cited § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket, but decided the appeal under other statutes. opinion →
Myers v. Christensen, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
Miller v. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 18-0011, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority to move the appeal to its docket; it does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Huff, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket, but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Pierce v. Drobny, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
In Re Interest of Tyler, the court cited § 24-1106(3) as authority to move the appeals to its docket but did not decide the section's rules. opinion →
In Re Dakota M., the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the case is on its docket; it does not decide the section's rules. opinion →
Fox v. Whitbeck, the court cited § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but did not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
In Re Interest of Rebecca B., the court mentions its authority to move the appeal to its docket but does not decide any rule of § 24-1106. opinion →
State v. Medina-Liborio, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Brooks, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the case is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Churchill v. Columbus Comm. Hosp., the court cited § 24-1106(3) only to explain how the case reached its docket; it did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Au, the court cited § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket, but did not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Davey, the court invoked § 24-1106 to move the appeal to its docket but did not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Durre v. Wilkinson Development, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the case to its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
J.P. v. Millard Public Schools, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Caniglia v. Caniglia, the court cites § 24-1106 only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Beveridge v. Savage, the court cites § 24-1106 only as authority for moving the case to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Smith, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the case to its docket; it does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, the court cited § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the case to its docket and did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Vlach v. Vlach, the court used § 24-1106(3) to move the appeal to its docket but did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Vanderpool, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the case to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Valverde, the court cites § 24-1106(2) only as authority to hear the appeal; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Rocha, the court cites § 24-1106(1) only to explain why it hears the appeal; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Pangborn, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
White v. Kohout, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Rieger, the court cited § 24-1106(3) as authority to move the appeal to its docket, but decided no rule of that section. opinion →
Service Empl. Internat. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Kenneth C. v. Lacie H., the court cites § 24-1106 as authority for moving the appeal to its docket, but decides no rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Smith, the court cites § 24-1106(1) only to explain why it hears the appeal; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Foster, the court cites the section only to explain why it hears the appeal; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
In re Interest of Kodi L., the court cites the section to explain why the case is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
In re Interest of Danaisha W., the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why it moved the appeal to its docket; it decides whether the juvenile court’s order is appealable, not a rule of this section. opinion →
Furstenfeld v. Pepin, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket, but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Carey v. City of Hastings, the court cited § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it did not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
Peterson v. Homesite Indemnity Co., the court cited the section as authority to move the case to its docket but did not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
Lang v. Howard County, the court invokes § 24-1106(3) to move the case to its docket but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Ely, the court cites § 24-1106(1) only as the basis for hearing the appeal; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Bruckner, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why the appeal was on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Village of Memphis v. Frahm, the court cites § 24-1106 as authority for moving the case to its docket but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Taylor, the court cites § 24-1106(1) only to explain why it hears the appeal; it does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
Deleon v. Reinke Mfg. Co., the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
In re Interest of Marcella G., the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority to move the appeal to its docket; it does not decide that section’s rules. opinion →
In re Interest of Samantha C., the court cited § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the case to its docket; it did not decide that section’s rules. opinion →
Carlson v. Versicherungs-AG, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Kerford Limestone Co. v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., the court cited the section as authority for moving the case to its docket but did not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Juranek, the court cites the section only to explain why it hears the appeal; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Johnson v. City of Fremont, the court cited § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket, but did not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Hall v. County of Lancaster, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the case to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
ConAgra Foods v. Zimmerman, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only to explain why the appeal was on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Wingfield v. Hill Bros. Transp., the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide a rule of that section. opinion →
In re Estate of Greb, the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the case to its docket; it does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
State v. Berney, the court cites § 24-1106(3) to explain why the appeal is on its docket, but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Lenz v. Central Parking System of Neb., the court cites the section only to explain why the case is on its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Christiansen v. County of Douglas, the court used § 24-1106(2) to bypass the Court of Appeals but did not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Skyline Manor v. Rynard, the court invoked § 24-1106 as authority to move the appeal to its docket but did not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
Breci v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., the court invokes § 24-1106(3) to explain why the case is on its docket, without deciding the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Kudlacz, the court cited § 24-1106(3) as authority to move the case to its docket but did not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Rodriguez, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket, but decides no rule of that section. opinion →
Weber v. North Loup River Pub. Power, the court cites § 24-1106 only as authority for moving the appeal to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Gaytan v. Wal-Mart, the court cited § 24-1106(3) as authority to move the appeal to its docket, but did not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
In re Trust Created by Nabity, the court used § 24-1106(3) to move the appeals to its docket but did not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State on behalf of Connor H. v. Blake G., the court cites § 24-1106(3) only as authority for moving the appeals to its docket; it does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
Federal Nat. Mortgage Assn. v. Marcuzzo, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the case to its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
State v. Piper, the court invokes the section to move the case to its docket but does not decide any rule of the section. opinion →
In re Interest of Nathaniel M., the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeals to its docket but does not decide any rule of that section. opinion →
State v. Planck, the court cites § 24-1106(3) as authority for moving the appeal to its docket but does not decide the section’s rules. opinion →
…and 468 more.

Which of these rulings fit your facts?

Describe your situation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106. Ezel checks it against the cases on this page and answers with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace