We hold that, irrespective of the circumstances of the parents' deaths, under Nebraska law, the determination of who shall be guardian and conservator is ultimately dependent upon the best interests of the children, although a testamentary nomination of a guardian or conservator may have statutory priority. See In re Estate of Jeffrey B., 268 Neb. 761, 688 N.W.2d 135 (2004). In re Estate of Jeffrey B., supra, involved a situation in which the parents of the children were both deceased.

A moot case is one which seeks to determine a question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights, in which the issues presented are no longer alive. In re Estate of Jeffrey B., 268 Neb. 761, 688 N.W.2d 135 (2004). In the case of a temporary order later replaced by a permanent order, the question whether it was “issued in error was relevant only from the time that it was ordered until it was replaced by the ... permanent order.”

[7] A moot case is one which seeks to determine a question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights, in which the issues presented are no longer alive. In re Estate of Jeffrey B., 268 Neb. 761, 688 N.W.2d 135 (2004). In the case of a temporary order later replaced by a permanent order, the question whether it was "issued in error was relevant only from the time that it was ordered until it was replaced by the . . . permanent order."

In re Guardianship Conservatorship of Borowiak, 10 Neb. App. 22, 624 N.W.2d 72 (2001). See, also, In re Estate of Jeffrey B., 268 Neb. 761, 688 N.W.2d 135 (2004). The standard of review of a trial court's determination of a request for sanctions is whether the trial court abused its discretion.

[4-6] In proceedings where the Nebraska rules of evidence apply, the admission of evidence is controlled by rule and not by judicial discretion, except where judicial discretion is a factor involved in assessing admissibility. In re Estate of Jeffrey B., 268 Neb. 761, 688 N.W.2d 135 (2004). Generally, a trial court's ruling in receiving or excluding an expert's testimony which is otherwise relevant will be reversed only when there has been an abuse of discretion. Robb v. Robb, 268 Neb. 694, 687 N.W.2d 195 (2004).

Evidence objected to which is substantially similar to evidence admitted without objection results in no prejudicial error.In re Estate of Jeffrey B., 268 Neb. 761, 688 N.W.2d 135 (2004). For the first time on appeal, Goynes suggests he was prejudiced, even if on direct appeal we would have found no merit to a challenge to the admissibility of the printouts, because Goynes "would have had the ability to petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on the same issue and pursue federal Habeas relief."

Generally, the control of discovery is a matter for judicial discretion, and decisions regarding discovery will be upheld on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. See, Sturzenegger v. Father Flanagan's Boys' Home, 276 Neb. 327, 754 N.W.2d 406 (2008); In re Estate of Jeffrey B., 268 Neb. 761, 688 N.W.2d 135 (2004). V ANALYSIS 1. RELEASE

Sturzenegger's appellate argument provides a broad generalization of a multitude of "examples" of erroneously admitted evidence, instead of specific arguments directed at specific rulings. In re Estate of Jeffrey B., 268 Neb. 761, 688 N.W.2d 135 (2004). But even considered generally, Sturzenegger's appellate argument lacks merit.

[3-5] In proceedings where the Nebraska rules of evidence apply, the admission of evidence is controlled by rule and not by judicial discretion, except where judicial discretion is a factor involved in assessing admissibility. In re Estate of Jeffrey B., 268 Neb. 761, 688 N.W.2d 135 (2004). Generally, a trial court's ruling in receiving or excluding an expert's testimony which is otherwise relevant will be reversed only when there has been an abuse of discretion. Robb v. Robb, 268 Neb. 694, 687 N.W.2d 195 (2004).

[1,2] Appeals of matters arising under the Nebraska Probate Code, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 30-2201 through 30-2902 (Reissue 1995 Cum. Supp. 2004), are reviewed for error on the record. In re Estate of Jeffrey B., 268 Neb. 761, 688 N.W.2d 135 (2004). When reviewing a judgment 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.