Farmers Union Co-Operative Insurance v. Neals

Nebraska Supreme Court

Farmers Union Co-Operative Insurance v. Neals

383 N.W.2d 35, 222 Neb. 249, 1986 Neb. LEXIS 887

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 14, 1986

DocketNo. 84-825

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 383 N.W.2d 35 (Farmers Union Co-Operative Insurance v. Neals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farmers Union Co-Operative Insurance v. Neals, 383 N.W.2d 35, 222 Neb. 249, 1986 Neb. LEXIS 887 (Neb. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff-appellant Farmers Union Co-Operative Insurance Company of Nebraska filed a notice of appeal in the district court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, on October 17, 1984. The notice of appeal states in part that appellant “appeals to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska from the order and judgment of the District Court entered on September 18, 1984, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.” Appellant sets out in its brief at 1: “C. HOW THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED At the trial held on June 7, 1984, the parties stipulated as to the facts relevant to the case. The Honorable Dale E. Farhnbruch [sic] on August 30,1984, found that appellant could not recover in a garnishment action against the appellee and dismissed appellant’s action.”

[250]*250The record before this court does not contain, in the transcript, the supplemental transcript, or the bill of exceptions, any court order or findings of August 30, 1984, or September 18, 1984, nor any motion for new trial. The only judgment appearing in the transcript is one dated March 31, 1980, in favor of appellant against Jimmy L. Neals.

Appellant’s brief does not make any references to the transcript, although such references are required by Neb. Ct. R. 9C(1) (rev. 1983). A simple adherence to this rule might have brought the missing orders to light.

The bill of exceptions of two pages makes reference to a “stipulation,” which in turn makes no reference to any garnishment proceedings.

It is not the province of this court to attempt to make the records before us comply with our rules of appeal. To do so would inevitably require us to become lawyers for one contending side or the other.

There is no final order or judgment before us to be reviewed. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff-appellant Farmers Union Co-Operative Insurance Company of Nebraska filed a notice of appeal in the district court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, on October 17, 1984. The notice of appeal states in part that appellant “appeals to the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska from the order and judgment of the District Court entered on September 18, 1984, denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.” Appellant sets out in its brief at 1: “C. HOW THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED At the trial held on June 7, 1984, the parties stipulated as to the facts relevant to the case. The Honorable Dale E. Farhnbruch [sic] on August 30,1984, found that appellant could not recover in a garnishment action against the appellee and dismissed appellant’s action.”

[250]*250The record before this court does not contain, in the transcript, the supplemental transcript, or the bill of exceptions, any court order or findings of August 30, 1984, or September 18, 1984, nor any motion for new trial. The only judgment appearing in the transcript is one dated March 31, 1980, in favor of appellant against Jimmy L. Neals.

Appellant’s brief does not make any references to the transcript, although such references are required by Neb. Ct. R. 9C(1) (rev. 1983). A simple adherence to this rule might have brought the missing orders to light.

The bill of exceptions of two pages makes reference to a “stipulation,” which in turn makes no reference to any garnishment proceedings.

It is not the province of this court to attempt to make the records before us comply with our rules of appeal. To do so would inevitably require us to become lawyers for one contending side or the other.

There is no final order or judgment before us to be reviewed. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 N.W.2d 35, 222 Neb. 249, 1986 Neb. LEXIS 887, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-union-co-operative-insurance-v-neals-neb-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack