Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): First Nat. Bank of York v. Critel, 251 Neb. 128, 555 N.W.2d 773 (1996). See, also, Talkington v. Womens Servs., 256 Neb. 2, 588 N.W.2d 790 (1999). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. Talkington v. Womens Servs., supra. ANALYSIS Jurisdictional Question. Lee Sapp argues that this court does not have jurisdiction over this appeal because Merrill Lynch did not file a motion to vacate the default judgment, but “a non-existent motion for an order ‘staying the execution of the judgment ....’” Brief for appellee Lee Sapp at 3. In support of Lee Sapp’s position, it cites Blitzkie v. State, 216 Neb. 105, 342 N.W.2d 5 (1983) (<HOLDING>), and Anderson v. Matthis, 246 Neb. 215, 518 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a motion to dismiss based on a forumselection clause should be treated as a rule 12b3 motion to dismiss for improper venue (B) holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable  (C) holding that motion to dismiss cannot be treated as summary judgment (D) holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment (E) holding that a rule 12b6 motion to dismiss should be treated as a motion for summary judgment when plaintiffs counsel relied upon facts outside the four corners of the complaint during oral argument of the motion
Output (English): holding that the courts denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and is not reviewable