Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
[J]urisdiction is the inherent power or authority to decide a case. See Chicago<br />
Lumber Co. v. School Dist. No. 71, 227 Neb. 355, 417 N.W.2d 757 (1988)<br />
“Jurisdiction of the subject matter” means the authority to hear and determine both<br />
the class of actions to which the action before the court belongs and the particular<br />
question which it assumes to decide. State v. Smith, 269 Neb. 773, 779, 696 N.W.2d<br />
871, 879 (2005).<br />
In Jones v. State, 175 Neb. 711, 717, 123 N.W.2d 633, 637 (1963), the court said:<br />
The jurisdiction of a state to regulate the custody of an infant found within its territory<br />
does not depend upon the domicile of the parents. It has its origin in the protection<br />
that is due to the incompetent or helpless. As we said in [In re Application of Reed,<br />
152 Neb. 819, 43 N.W.2d 161 (1950)]: “The jurisdiction of a state to regulate the custody<br />
of infants found within its territory does not depend upon the domicile of the child,<br />
but it arises out of the power that every sovereignty possesses as parens patriae to<br />
every child within its borders to determine its status and the custody that will best<br />
meet its needs and wants, and residence within the state suffices even though the<br />
domicile may be in another jurisdiction.”<br />
[N]either the domicile of the parent nor that of the child is determinative of the<br />
court’s subject matter jurisdiction.<br />
“in a proceeding under the <strong>Nebraska</strong> Juvenile Code, the State is not required to<br />
prove proper venue.”<br />
[W]e construe the <strong>Nebraska</strong> Juvenile Code liberally to accomplish its purpose of<br />
serving the best interests of the juveniles who fall within it. See In re Interest of<br />
Gabriela H., 280 Neb. 284, 785 N.W.2d 843 (2010).<br />
J & H Swine v. Hartington Concrete*, 12 Neb. App. 885, 687 N.W.2d 9 (2004)<br />
Rule: Timing is everything. This case, if anything, may teach the necessity for patience.<br />
For an appellate court to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, there must be a final<br />
order entered by the court from which the appeal is taken; conversely, an appellate<br />
court is without jurisdiction to entertain appeals from nonfinal orders.<br />
A notice of appeal filed before the trial court announced a “decision or final order”<br />
within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912(2) (Cum. Supp. 2002) in final<br />
determination of an issue of costs cannot relate forward.<br />
Lamb v. Lamb, 14 Neb. App. 337, 707 N.W.2d 423 (2005)<br />
The <strong>Nebraska</strong> <strong>Child</strong> Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) does not confer subject<br />
matter jurisdiction upon a <strong>Nebraska</strong> court to modify a child support order issued by<br />
another state.<br />
This case also includes a good discussion of the differences between UIFSA and the UCCJA<br />
Molczyk v. Molczyk, 285 Neb. 96, ____ N.W.2d ____, (January 2013)<br />
Jurisdiction, Jurisdiction. Who has the jurisdiction?<br />
Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-348 (Reissue 2008), a plaintiff can commence a marital<br />
dissolution action in the district court of any county in which one of the parties<br />
resides.<br />
Under the doctrine of jurisdictional priority, when different state courts have<br />
concurrent original jurisdiction over the same subject matter, basic principles of<br />
judicial administration require that the first court to acquire jurisdiction should retain it<br />
to the exclusion of another court. That is, a second court lacks jurisdiction over the<br />
same matter involving the same parties.<br />
- 115 -