Martin v. Martin

2 Citing cases

  1. Hodgen v. Hodgen

    No. A-19-285 (Neb. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2019)   Cited 1 times
    In Hodgen v. Hodgen, No. A-19-285, 2019 WL 6130934 (Neb. App. Nov. 19, 2019) (selected for posting to court website), this court reversed the district court's order and remanded the matter with directions to grant Mark the requested 50-percent abatement for the months of June, July, and August 2018 in accordance with the terms of the parties’ decree.

    And the district court was not authorized to modify the decree sua sponte. See Martin v. Martin, 261 Neb. 125, 621 N.W.2d 511 (2001) (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-351 (Reissue 2016) does not authorize district court to modify, sua sponte, final order from which no appeal has been taken).

  2. Parker v. Parker

    636 N.W.2d 385 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 22 times
    In Parker v. Parker, 10 Neb. App. 658, 636 N.W.2d 385 (2001), this court quoted part of the above quote and found that an order which was apparently intended to be a final order but which contained nothing but findings was not a final order.

    A jurisdictional question which does not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law, in which case the appellate court must reach a conclusion independent from the lower court's decision. Martin v. Martin, 261 Neb. 125, 621 N.W.2d 511 (2001). ANALYSIS