Source: http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=24-517&print=true
Timestamp: 2017-10-21 01:31:48
Document Index: 176685464

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 17', '§ 6', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 12', '§ 7', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 114', '§ 29', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 5', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1']

24-517. Jurisdiction.
(1) Exclusive original jurisdiction of all matters relating to decedents' estates, including the probate of wills and the construction thereof, except as provided in subsection (c) of section 30-2464 and section 30-2486;
(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.
(b) The Supreme Court shall adjust the jurisdictional amount for the county court every fifth year commencing July 1, 2005. The adjusted jurisdictional amount shall be equal to the then current jurisdictional amount adjusted by the average percentage change in the unadjusted Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers published by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics for the five-year period preceding the adjustment date. The jurisdictional amount shall be rounded to the nearest one-thousand-dollar amount;
(17) Concurrent original jurisdiction with the district court in matters arising under the Uniform Testamentary Additions to Trusts Act (1991) except as otherwise provided in subdivision (1) of this section;
Source:Laws 1972, LB 1032, § 17; Laws 1973, LB 226, § 6; Laws 1977, LB 96, § 1; Laws 1979, LB 373, § 1; Laws 1983, LB 137, § 1; Laws 1984, LB 13, § 12; Laws 1986, LB 529, § 7; Laws 1986, LB 1229, § 1; Laws 1991, LB 422, § 1; Laws 1996, LB 1296, § 2; Laws 1997, LB 229, § 1; Laws 1998, LB 1041, § 1; Laws 2001, LB 269, § 1; Laws 2003, LB 130, § 114; Laws 2005, LB 361, § 29; Laws 2008, LB280, § 1; Laws 2008, LB1014, § 4; Laws 2009, LB35, § 5; Laws 2014, LB464, § 2; Laws 2015, LB314, § 1; Laws 2017, LB268, § 1.
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).
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).