Source: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=24-517
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:55:43+00:00

Document:
(5) Concurrent original jurisdiction with the district court in all civil actions of any type when the amount in controversy is forty-five thousand dollars or less through June 30, 2005, and as set by the Supreme Court pursuant to subdivision (b) of this subdivision on and after July 1, 2005.
(a) When the pleadings or discovery proceedings in a civil action indicate that the amount in controversy is greater than the jurisdictional amount of subdivision (5) of this section, the county court shall, upon the request of any party, certify the proceedings to the district court as provided in section 25-2706. An award of the county court which is greater than the jurisdictional amount of subdivision (5) of this section is not void or unenforceable because it is greater than such amount, however, if an award of the county court is greater than the jurisdictional amount, the county court shall tax as additional costs the difference between the filing fee in district court and the filing fee in county court.
(19) All other jurisdiction heretofore provided and not specifically repealed by Laws 1972, Legislative Bill 1032, and such other jurisdiction as hereafter provided by law.
Laws 2017, LB268, § 1.
Nebraska Uniform Custodial Trust Act, see section 30-3501.
Uniform Testamentary Additions to Trusts Act (1991), see section 30-3601.
The concurrent, original jurisdiction conferred on a county court under subdivision (7) of this section is more expansive than the jurisdiction conferred by section 25-2740(3) on a county court sitting as a juvenile court or a separate juvenile court. The jurisdiction conferred by section 25-2740(3) is neither exclusive nor original, because the conditions of section 43-2,113 must first be satisfied. Those conditions require a district court to transfer the case to juvenile court and the juvenile court to consent to the transfer. Molczyk v. Molczyk, 285 Neb. 96, 825 N.W.2d 435 (2013).
In common-law and equity actions relating to decedents' estates, the county courts have concurrent original jurisdiction with the district courts. When the jurisdiction of the county court and the district court is concurrent, the basic principles of judicial administration require that the court which first acquires jurisdiction should retain it to the exclusion of the other court. Washington v. Conley, 273 Neb. 908, 734 N.W.2d 306 (2007).
Pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the county court has exclusive original jurisdiction of all proceedings regarding a decedent's estate. Mischke v. Mischke, 253 Neb. 439, 571 N.W.2d 248 (1997).
This section does not divest a county court of its subject matter jurisdiction to modify its own void judgments. State v. LeGrand, 249 Neb. 1, 541 N.W.2d 380 (1995).
Subsection (4) of this section does not vest equity jurisdiction in the county courts. Iodence v. Potmesil, 239 Neb. 387, 476 N.W.2d 554 (1991).
This section clearly grants county courts jurisdiction over actions involving speeding violations. State v. Jones, 209 Neb. 296, 307 N.W.2d 126 (1981).
County courts have exclusive original jurisdiction of all matters related to decedents' estates, including the probate of wills and the construction thereof, and all other jurisdiction heretofore provided and not specifically repealed by Laws 1972, L.B. 1032, and such other jurisdiction as thereafter provided by law. County courts, in exercising exclusive original jurisdiction over estates, may apply equitable principles to matters within probate jurisdiction. In re Estate of Layton, 207 Neb. 646, 300 N.W.2d 802 (1981).
Notwithstanding this section, the district court retains jurisdiction in injunction actions brought to enforce zoning ordinances. Village of Springfield v. Hevelone, 195 Neb. 37, 236 N.W.2d 811 (1975).
Subsection (1) of this section confers upon the county court exclusive original jurisdiction of all matters relating to the decedents' estates, including the probate of wills and the construction thereof, except as provided in sections 30-2464(c) and 30-2486. Lenners v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 18 Neb. App. 772, 793 N.W.2d 357 (2010).
This section, combined with sections 25-2740 and 43-247, vests juvenile courts and county courts sitting as juvenile courts with jurisdiction over a custody modification proceeding if the court already has jurisdiction over the juvenile under a separate provision of section 43-247. In re Interest of Ethan M., 18 Neb. App. 63, 774 N.W.2d 766 (2009).
Jurisdiction over confirmation of arbitration awards is conferred upon the district court, and the county court has no such jurisdiction. MBNA America Bank v. Hansen, 16 Neb. App. 536, 745 N.W.2d 609 (2008).
Although county courts lack general equity jurisdiction, they may apply equitable principles to matters that are within their exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, when a county court has exclusive jurisdiction over a guardianship case, it can recognize a petitioner's in loco parentis status in determining the petitioner's standing to seek visitation or custody. But it cannot confer permanent in loco parentis status on a petitioner in advance of a custody dispute because the doctrine is transitory. In re Guardianship of Brydon P., 286 Neb. 661, 838 N.W.2d 262 (2013).
The certification of a civil proceeding, in which the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory limit, is now mandatory only upon the request of a party. Hunt v. Trackwell, 262 Neb. 688, 635 N.W.2d 106 (2001).
When a claim presented in the manner described in section 30-2486 and within the time limit described in section 30-2485 is disallowed by the personal representative, the dissatisfied claimant may, within 60 days of the mailing of notice of the disallowance, commence a proceeding against the personal representative in the district court insofar as the claim relates to matters within the district court's chancery or common-law jurisdiction. Holdrege Co-op Assn. v. Wilson, 236 Neb. 541, 463 N.W.2d 312 (1990).
One suing a parent under the family purpose doctrine for damages caused by a member of the family, who was killed in an accident, need not first file a claim in the estate of the decedent. Marcus v. Everett, 195 Neb. 518, 239 N.W.2d 487 (1976).
In the exercise of its jurisdiction over a custody modification proceeding, a county court sitting as a juvenile court cannot permanently modify child custody through the mere adoption of a case plan pursuant to section 43-285(2). In re Interest of Ethan M., 18 Neb. App. 63, 774 N.W.2d 766 (2009).

References: § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.