State v. R.W.

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. R.W.

397 N.W.2d 36, 224 Neb. 197, 1986 Neb. LEXIS 1162

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 5, 1986

DocketNo. 86-177

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 397 N.W.2d 36 (State v. R.W.) 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

State v. R.W., 397 N.W.2d 36, 224 Neb. 197, 1986 Neb. LEXIS 1162 (Neb. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The separate juvenile court adjudged the subject 15-year-old to be within the purview of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) and (b) (Reissue 1984) and placed her care and custody in and with the Department of Social Services. The brief filed in this court by the appellant parents fails to make specific assignments of error as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1919 (Reissue 1985) and Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 9D(l)d (rev. 1986). The brief further fails to make any references to the record as required by Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 9D(l)f (rev. 1986). Under either of those circumstances, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed, absent any plain error this court may note. Leisy v. Lisco State Bank, 223 Neb. 946, 395 N.W.2d 517 (1986); State v. Eckstein, 223 Neb. 943, 395 N.W.2d 515 (1986). Accordingly, the judgment of the separate juvenile court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The separate juvenile court adjudged the subject 15-year-old to be within the purview of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) and (b) (Reissue 1984) and placed her care and custody in and with the Department of Social Services. The brief filed in this court by the appellant parents fails to make specific assignments of error as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1919 (Reissue 1985) and Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 9D(l)d (rev. 1986). The brief further fails to make any references to the record as required by Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 9D(l)f (rev. 1986). Under either of those circumstances, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed, absent any plain error this court may note. Leisy v. Lisco State Bank, 223 Neb. 946, 395 N.W.2d 517 (1986); State v. Eckstein, 223 Neb. 943, 395 N.W.2d 515 (1986). Accordingly, the judgment of the separate juvenile court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

397 N.W.2d 36, 224 Neb. 197, 1986 Neb. LEXIS 1162, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rw-neb-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack