From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Klug v. Smith

Supreme Court of Nebraska
Jun 20, 1986
223 Neb. 202 (Neb. 1986)

Opinion

No. 85-383

Filed June 20, 1986

Appeal and Error. Both the rules of this court and prior case law require that each error relied upon for reversal be separately and concisely stated and discussed.

Appeal from the District Court for Cedar County: ROBERT E. OTTE, Judge. Affirmed.

Mark Behm, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.

KRIVOSHA, C.J., BOSLAUGH, WHITE, HASTINGS, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, and GRANT, JJ.


This action involves the ownership of an 11-acre tract of real estate bordering the Missouri River in Cedar County, Nebraska. Defendant-appellant, Alice Mae Shove Hansen, originally filed a partition action in June 1984. Plaintiffs-appellees, Reinhold, Gerald, and Donald Klug, filed a separate quiet title action, naming Hansen and other interested parties as defendants. The Cedar County District Court found that the plaintiffs had sufficiently established adverse possession of the property as against their cotenants, Hansen and the others. The court quieted title in the Klugs, and Hansen appeals.

In her appellate brief, Hansen fails to assign errors. We have frequently held that errors not properly assigned will not be considered. Both the rules of this court and prior case law require that each error relied upon for reversal be separately and concisely stated and discussed. Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 9D(1)d (rev. 1983); Lincoln Co. Sheriff's Emp. Assn. v. Co. of Lincoln, 216 Neb. 274, 343 N.W.2d 735 (1984); State ex rel. Hilt Truck Line v. Jensen, 218 Neb. 591, 357 N.W.2d 455 (1984).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Klug v. Smith

Supreme Court of Nebraska
Jun 20, 1986
223 Neb. 202 (Neb. 1986)
Case details for

Klug v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:REINHOLD KLUG ET AL., APPELLEES, v. HILDEGARDE ELIZABETH SHOVE SMITH ET…

Court:Supreme Court of Nebraska

Date published: Jun 20, 1986

Citations

223 Neb. 202 (Neb. 1986)
388 N.W.2d 515

Citing Cases

State v. Wiley

As he does not specifically assign ineffective assistance of counsel as error, we will not consider his…

State v. Lynch

It is therefore a matter with which we do not concern ourselves, for errors not discussed are not considered…