Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

disobedience as an essential element. “Willful” means the violation was
committed intentionally, with knowledge that the act violated the court order.
A court cannot hold a person or party in contempt unless the order or consent
decree gave clear warning that the conduct in question was required or proscribed.
In civil cases, when a party’s interests are substantial and involve more than the
mere loss of money, but obviously do not involve a criminal conviction, due process
is satisfied by an intermediate “clear and convincing” standard of proof. Proof
beyond a reasonable doubt is a criminal trial protection that does not apply to civil
contempt proceedings.
As of the date of this opinion (April 16, 2010), outside of statutory procedures
imposing a different standard, it is the complainant’s burden to prove civil contempt
by clear and convincing evidence.
State v. Collins, 281 Neb. 927, 799 N.W.2d 693 (July 2011)
[A]n issue not presented to or decided on by the trial court is not an appropriate
issue for consideration on appeal. [W]e have applied those principles to find waiver
of statutory and even constitutional rights when a defendant fails to raise them.
Szawicki v. Szawicki, 17 Neb. App. 820, 770 N.W.2d 676 (2009)
Briefly speaking….
A party filing a cross-appeal must set forth a separate division of the brief prepared
in the same manner and under the same rules as the brief of appellant. See, Neb.
Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(D)(4); Vokal v. Nebraska Acct. & Disclosure Comm., 276
Neb. 988, 795 N.W.2d 75 (2009)
the cross-appeal section of a party’s brief must set forth a separate title page, a table
of contents, a statement of the case, assigned errors, propositions of law, and a
statement of facts. See, § 2-109(D)(1)
Walsh v. State, 276 Neb. 1034, 759 N.W.2d 100 (2009)
A judgment or final order rendered by a district court in a judicial review pursuant to
the Administrative Procedure Act may be reversed, vacated, or modified by an
appellate court for errors appearing on the record. When reviewing an order of a
district court under the Administrative Procedure Act for errors appearing on the
record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by
competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.
Nothnagel v. Neth, 752 N.W.2d 149 (2008).
To be considered by (the appellate) court, an alleged error must be both specifically
assigned and specifically argued in the brief of the party asserting the error.
Malchow v. Doyle, 275 Neb. 530, 748 N.W.2d 28 (2008).
Wharton v. Jackson, 107 Neb. 288, 185 N.W. 428 (1921)
[J]urisdiction of the court in matters relating to divorce and alimony is given by
statute, and every power exercised by the court in reference thereto must look to the
statute or it does not exist. [Citation omitted.] We cannot change it; we must
therefore take the decree as we find it, inasmuch as the interested parties have
made no move to change it but have treated it as final.
- 13 -