reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
NE Code § 25-1149 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1149 - Issues; order in which tried; time of hearing.

25-1149.  Issues; order in which tried; time of hearing.The trial of an issue of fact and the assessment of damages in any case shall be in the order in which they are placed on the trial docket, unless by consent of parties or the order of the court they are continued, placed at the heel of the trial docket, or temporarily postponed. The time of hearing all other cases shall be in the order in which they are placed on the trial docket, unless the court shall otherwise direct. The court may in its discretion hear at any time a motion, may by rule prescribe the time for hearing motions, and may provide for dismissing actions without prejudice for want of prosecution.Source   R.S.1867, Code § 324, p. 448;   Laws 1887, c. 94, § 2, p. 648;   Laws 1899, c. 83, § 2, p. 339;   R.S.1913, § 7890;   C.S.1922, § 8832;   C.S.1929, § 20-1149;   R.S.1943, § 25-1149;  Laws 2018, LB193, § 16.  Annotations  The district court abused its discretion in dismissing, without explanation, an inmate’s complaint for lack of prosecution when the court identified two ways of avoiding dismissal and the inmate timely performed one of the specified actions. Jones v. Jones, 284 Neb. 361, 821 N.W.2d 211 (2012). A district court has discretionary power to dismiss a case without prejudice for want of prosecution. Such a dismissal is also within the inherent power of the court. Talkington v. Womens Servs., P.C., 256 Neb. 2, 588 N.W.2d 790 (1999). Even where statute of limitations would bar filing of a new action, district court may dismiss a case for want of prosecution where facts indicate unreasonable delay with no justifiable excuse. Schaeffer v. Hunter, 200 Neb. 221, 263 N.W.2d 102 (1978). A court may under court rule dismiss cases for lack of progress after a specified time interval. Fanning v. Richards, 193 Neb. 431, 227 N.W.2d 595 (1975). Court has power to dismiss for want of prosecution. Brown v. Lincoln, 157 Neb. 840, 61 N.W.2d 836 (1954). Causes are to be tried in the district court in the order in which they are entered upon the trial docket, unless court otherwise directs. Osgood v. Grant, 44 Neb. 350, 62 N.W. 894 (1895).
NE Code § 25-1150 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1150 - Transferred to section 25-21,184.

25-1150.  Transferred to section 25-21,184.
NE Code § 25-1151 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1151 - Transferred to section 25-21,185.

25-1151.  Transferred to section 25-21,185.
NE Code § 25-1152 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1152 - Transferred to section 25-21,186.

25-1152.  Transferred to section 25-21,186.
NE Code § 25-1153 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1153 - Transferred to section 25-21,187.

25-1153.  Transferred to section 25-21,187.
NE Code § 25-1154 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1154 - Legislative purpose and findings.

25-1154.  Legislative purpose and findings.The purpose of sections 25-1154 to 25-1157 is to provide an alternate dispute resolution technique, to be known as the summary jury trial, for use by the parties to civil court actions. The Legislature finds that the procedures set forth in such sections will save valuable court and juror resources, promote prompt resolution of disputes, and increase settlement of disputed actions prior to a jury trial. The Legislature declares that courts should liberally construe such sections and employ summary jury trials in appropriate civil actions to effectuate the purposes and findings set forth in this section.Source  Laws 1987, LB 225, § 1.
NE Code § 25-1155 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1155 - Motion; when granted; contents.

25-1155.  Motion; when granted; contents.In any civil action, the district court may grant a summary jury trial upon the written motion of all parties or their oral motion in court entered upon the record. The motion for summary jury trial may contain a stipulation of the parties concerning the use or effect of the summary jury verdict.Source  Laws 1987, LB 225, § 2.
NE Code § 25-1156 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1156 - Trial; how conducted.

25-1156.  Trial; how conducted.Summary jury trials shall be conducted in the same manner as any other trial by jury under Chapter 25, article 11, with the following exceptions:(1) A six-person jury shall be selected from persons whose names appear on the jury list and who qualify as jurors. Examination of the prospective jurors shall be conducted by the judge who shall select the jury subject to each party's right to challenge two jurors;(2) Each party shall have an equal amount of time to present his or her case as shall be agreed upon by the parties and the judge;(3) The judge need not preside during the presentation of the case but may give the jury written or oral instructions on the applicable law following the presentation;(4) The parties shall not present evidence but may present representations or summaries of evidence which would be adduced and admissible at trial. At least ten days prior to trial the parties shall exchange the representations or summaries of evidence which will be presented to the jury. All objections to the evidence shall be made prior to the summary jury trial and shall not be allowed during the trial;(5) The parties shall attend the summary jury trial. The president, chief executive officer, or any other representative with authority to enter into a binding agreement or make a binding settlement offer from each corporation or association which is a party shall attend; and(6) The jury may return either a consensus verdict or a special verdict consisting of an anonymous statement of each juror's findings which includes (a) the parties' respective liability, (b) the value of damages, and (c) a general verdict.Source  Laws 1987, LB 225, § 3.
NE Code § 25-1157 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1157 - Trial; use of verdict; records; not required.

25-1157.  Trial; use of verdict; records; not required.Summary jury trials shall not result in a final determination on the merits and shall not be appealable. Neither the fact of the holding of a summary jury trial nor the jurors' verdict nor the presentations by the parties shall be admissible as evidence in any subsequent trial of the action except any documents otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence. No record shall be required of the jury selection, the presentation of the parties, or the instructions by the court of the summary jury trial.Source  Laws 1987, LB 225, § 4.
NE Code § 25-1209 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1209 - Witnesses; answer subjecting to civil liability; not privileged.

25-1209.  Witnesses; answer subjecting to civil liability; not privileged.A witness is not excused from answering a question upon the mere ground that he would be thereby subject to a civil liability.Source   R.S.1867, Code § 336, p. 450;   R.S.1913, § 7901;   C.S.1922, § 8843;   C.S.1929, § 20-1209;   R.S.1943, § 25-1209.
NE Code § 25-1210 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1210 - Witnesses; answer subjecting to criminal liability; disgracing answer; privilege.

25-1210.  Witnesses; answer subjecting to criminal liability; disgracing answer; privilege.When the matter sought to be elicited would tend to render the witness criminally liable or to expose him or her to public ignominy, the witness is not compelled to answer, except as provided in section 27-609.Source   R.S.1867, Code § 337, p. 450;   R.S.1913, § 7902;   C.S.1922, § 8844;   C.S.1929, § 20-1210;   R.S.1943, § 25-1210;  Laws 2003, LB 19, § 2.  Cross References  For privilege of immunity in proceeding for discovery of property, see section 25-1567.Annotations  The public ignominy privilege provided in this section cannot be asserted by a witness in a criminal case. State v. Riensche, 283 Neb. 820, 812 N.W.2d 293 (2012). In dissolution action, trial court's ruling allowing wife to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination was supported by this section. Ritchey v. Ritchey, 208 Neb. 100, 302 N.W.2d 372 (1981). In determining whether the testimony of a witness who had pleaded guilty to a similar charge but had not been sentenced, who invoked the privilege of self-incrimination during cross-examination may be used against the defendant, a distinction must be drawn between cases in which the assertion of the privilege merely precludes inquiry into collateral matters which bear only on the creditability of the witness and those cases in which the assertion of the privilege prevents inquiry into matters about which the witness testified on direct examination. State v. Bittner, 188 Neb. 298, 196 N.W.2d 186 (1972). Privilege of refusing to answer may be asserted at time witness is confronted with question or interrogatory. State ex rel. Beck v. Lush, 168 Neb. 367, 95 N.W.2d 695 (1959). Privilege of witness to refuse to answer on ground answer may tend to incriminate him or expose him to public ignominy must be timely made or it will be deemed to have been waived. State ex rel. Wright v. Barlow, 132 Neb. 166, 271 N.W. 282 (1937). Questions tending to incriminate or expose witness to public ignominy were improper. Pricer v. Lincoln Gas & Elec. Co., 111 Neb. 209, 196 N.W. 150 (1923). If witness testified to part, he waives privilege as to whole transaction. Lombard v. Mayberry, 24 Neb. 674, 40 N.W. 271 (1888).
NE Code § 25-1211 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1211 - Witnesses; credibility; impeachment.

25-1211.  Witnesses; credibility; impeachment.Facts which have heretofore caused the exclusion of testimony, may still be shown for the purpose of lessening its credibility.Source   R.S.1867, Code § 330, p. 450;   R.S.1913, § 7903;   C.S.1922, § 8845;   C.S.1929, § 20-1211;   R.S.1943, § 25-1211. Annotations  State was permitted on cross-examination to interrogate accused as to his prior criminal record. O'Connor v. State, 123 Neb. 471, 243 N.W. 650 (1932). Evidence of writings made during trial as a basis of comparison for determination of disputed documents was properly admitted. In re Estate of Husa, 121 Neb. 67, 236 N.W. 177 (1931). Record of conviction may be received to lessen credibility of witness, but such record is not conclusive. Reed v. State, 66 Neb. 184, 92 N.W. 321 (1902). Previous inconsistent statements of witness may be shown, where proper foundation therefor has been laid. Omaha Loan & Trust Co. v. Douglas County, 62 Neb. 1, 86 N.W. 936 (1901); Tatum v. State, 61 Neb. 229, 85 N.W. 40 (1901). Evidence of reputation of witness should be confined to reputation at place of residence. Faulkner v. Gilbert, 61 Neb. 602, 85 N.W. 843 (1901). The record of conviction of an offense below the grade of a felony is not admissible to affect the credibility of a witness. YMCA of Lincoln v. Rawlings, 60 Neb. 377, 83 N.W. 175 (1900).
NE Code § 25-1213 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1213 - Notarial protest as evidence of dishonor; bill of exchange or promissory note.

25-1213.  Notarial protest as evidence of dishonor; bill of exchange or promissory note.The usual protest by a notary public, without proof of his signature or notarial seal, is evidence of the dishonor and notice of a bill of exchange or promissory note.Source   R.S.1867, Code § 349, p. 452;   R.S.1913, § 7905;   C.S.1922, § 8847;   C.S.1929, § 20-1213;   R.S.1943, § 25-1213. Annotations Certificate of notary is evidence of notice as well as protest. Williams v. Parks, 63 Neb. 747, 89 N.W. 395 (1902).
NE Code § 25-1216 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1216 - Evidence; instrument; written and printed matter; writing controls.

25-1216.  Evidence; instrument; written and printed matter; writing controls.When an instrument consists partly of written and partly of printed form, the former controls the latter, where the two are inconsistent.Source   R.S.1867, Code § 340, p. 451;   R.S.1913, § 7908;   C.S.1922, § 8850;   C.S.1929, § 20-1216;   R.S.1943, § 25-1216. Cross References  Commercial paper, see section 3-114, Uniform Commercial Code.Annotations  In a typed contract, writing subsequent to the typing controls where there is a conflict between the typed and written provisions thereof. Spencer-O'Neill House, Inc. v. Denbeck, 196 Neb. 456, 243 N.W.2d 767 (1976). Typewriting controls printed form where two are inconsistent. Jacobsen v. Farnham, 155 Neb. 776, 53 N.W.2d 917 (1952). Typewriting is writing within the contemplation of the statute. Mack Investment Co. v. Dominy, 140 Neb. 709, 1 N.W.2d 295 (1941); New Masonic Temple Assn. v. Globe Indemnity Co., 134 Neb. 731, 279 N.W. 475 (1938). Sewer contractor could recover for sheeting lumber left in trench by city engineer's order, where payment was provided for in specifications, though contract provided no extras would be allowed for sheeting left in trench. Petersen v. City of Omaha, 120 Neb. 219, 231 N.W. 763 (1930). Where first paragraph of conditions of builder's bond is in typewriting complete within itself, and inconsistent provisions are in fine print as part of blank form evidently not intended to be used, typewritten part controls. American Surety Co. v. School Dist. No. 64 of Douglas Co., 117 Neb. 6, 219 N.W. 583 (1928). Where printed part of land contract says "good title of record," but typewritten part says "title satisfactory to attorney" of purchaser, latter prevails. Flower v. Coe, 111 Neb. 296, 196 N.W. 139 (1923).
NE Code § 25-1218 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1218 - Works of history, science, or art; presumptive evidence.

25-1218.  Works of history, science, or art; presumptive evidence.Historical works, books of science or art, and published maps or charts, when made by persons indifferent between the parties, are presumptive evidence of facts of general notoriety or interest.Source   R.S.1867, Code § 342, p. 451;   R.S.1913, § 7910;   C.S.1922, § 8852;   C.S.1929, § 20-1218;   R.S.1943, § 25-1218. Annotations  Text books on surgery are not competent evidence except as to matters of general notoriety or interest. Van Skike v. Potter, 53 Neb. 28, 73 N.W. 295 (1897). Books of science or art are competent evidence when shown to be reputable or standard works. Sioux City & Pacific R. R. Co. v. Finlayson, 16 Neb. 578, 20 N.W. 860 (1884).
NE Code § 25-1220 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1220 - Handwriting; proof by comparison; experts; jury.

25-1220.  Handwriting; proof by comparison; experts; jury.Evidence respecting handwriting may be given by comparisons made, by experts or by the jury, with writing of the same person which is proved to be genuine.Source   R.S.1867, Code § 344, p. 451;   R.S.1913, § 7912;   C.S.1922, § 8854;   C.S.1929, § 20-1220;   R.S.1943, § 25-1220. Annotations  1. Comparison 2. Miscellaneous 1. Comparison This section permits comparisons between known genuine writing and the disputed writing to be made by a jury either with or without the aid of experts. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co. v. Nielsen, 222 Neb. 92, 382 N.W.2d 328 (1986). In case tried to judge, handwriting may be compared by him with genuine writing of the same person. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Cutright, 189 Neb. 805, 205 N.W.2d 542 (1973). Court may admit writings made during progress of trial as a basis for comparison. In re Estate of Husa, 121 Neb. 67, 236 N.W. 177 (1931). Expert testimony of handwriting based wholly on comparison of hands is in nature of circumstantial evidence. Wakeley v. State, 118 Neb. 346, 225 N.W. 42 (1929). Instrument and signature introduced in evidence was sufficient basis for comparison with signature in question. Harrington v. Vogle, 103 Neb. 677, 173 N.W. 699 (1919). Where execution of contract was denied, introduction of genuine signatures of deceased in evidence for comparison raised question of fact for jury. Wells v. Cochran, 78 Neb. 612, 111 N.W. 381 (1907). Proved genuine writings should be admitted in evidence for the purpose of permitting the jury as well as experts to make the necessary comparison. First Nat. Bank of Madison v. Carson, 48 Neb. 763, 67 N.W. 779 (1896). Comparison may be made by experts or by jury. Grand Island Banking Co. v. Shoemaker, 31 Neb. 124, 47 N.W. 696 (1891). Only genuine signature admitted or proven can be submitted to jury for comparison with disputed writings. Link v. Reeves, 3 Neb. Unof. 383, 91 N.W. 506 (1902). 2. Miscellaneous Opinion of handwriting experts on issue of forgery in civil action may be used to contradict testimony of witnesses who saw note executed, and may be sufficient to overturn same. Bank of Commerce of Louisville v. McCarty, 119 Neb. 795, 231 N.W. 34 (1930). Refusal to permit cross-examination of expert on handwriting was not prejudicial. Schreiner v. Shanahan, 105 Neb. 525, 181 N.W. 536 (1921). One familiar with handwriting of party denying alleged signature is competent to give opinion. First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Lierman, 5 Neb. 247 (1876).
NE Code § 25-1222 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1222 - Private writing; when admissible without proof.

25-1222.  Private writing; when admissible without proof.Every private writing, except a last will and testament, after being acknowledged or proved and certified in the manner prescribed for the proof or acknowledgment of conveyances of real property, may be read in evidence without further proof.Source   R.S.1867, Code § 347, p. 452;   R.S.1913, § 7914;   C.S.1922, § 8856;   C.S.1929, § 20-1222;   R.S.1943, § 25-1222. Annotations  Letter in answer, if self explanatory, is admissible by itself. New Hampshire Trust Co. v. Korsmeyer Plumbing & Heating Co., 57 Neb. 784, 78 N.W. 303 (1899). Memorandum made contemporaneously with the facts therein noted, when supplemented by oath of party who made it, is admissible as independent evidence. Imhoff v. Richards, 48 Neb. 590, 67 N.W. 483 (1896). Proof of preexistence and search for written evidence is essential to admission of secondary evidence. Samuelson v. Gale Mfg. Co., 1 Neb. Unof. 815, 95 N.W. 809 (1901).
NE Code § 25-1222.01 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1222.01 - Advance payment by person or corporation to injured person; not admission against interest; credit for payment; not admissible as evidence at trial.

25-1222.01.  Advance payment by person or corporation to injured person; not admission against interest; credit for payment; not admissible as evidence at trial.No advance payments or partial payment of damages made by an insurance company or other person, firm, trust, or corporation as an accommodation to an injured person or on his behalf to others or to the heirs at law or dependents of a deceased person made under any liability insurance policy, or other voluntary payments made because of an injury, death claim, property loss, or potential claim against any insured or other person, firm, trust, or corporation thereunder shall be construed as an admission of liability by the insured or other person, firm, trust, or corporation, or the payer's recognition of such liability, with respect to such injured or deceased person or with respect to any other claim arising from the same accident or event. Any such payments shall constitute a credit and be deductible from any final settlement made or judgment rendered with respect to such injured or deceased person. In the event of a trial involving such a claim, the fact that such payments have been made shall not be admissible in evidence or brought to the attention of the jury, and the matter of any credit to be deducted from a judgment shall be determined by the court in a separate hearing or upon the stipulation of the parties.Source   Laws 1967, c. 145, § 1, p. 442;   Laws 1975, LB 560, § 1. Annotations  Under this section, a party is entitled to a credit on any judgment rendered against him or her for payments or partial payment of damages made on behalf of such party to an injured person. Maxwell v. Montey, 265 Neb. 335, 656 N.W.2d 617 (2003). The language and the intent of this section, which provides that an insurance company is entitled to credit on any judgment rendered against an insured for any payments or partial payment of claimed damages made on behalf of such party to an injured person or on his or her behalf to others, include an assignee or subrogee of the injured person. Brockhaus v. Lambert, 259 Neb. 160, 608 N.W.2d 588 (2000). An insurance company is entitled to credit on a judgment against its insured for payments of claimed damages made on behalf of the injured party to the assignee or subrogee of the injured party. Beeder v. Fleer, 211 Neb. 294, 318 N.W.2d 708 (1982). Unless the context otherwise requires, an advance payment by an insurer pursuant to a medical payments coverage provision in its insured's automobile liability policy should be applied as a credit to damages awarded against the insured. Murrish v. Burkey, 1 Neb. App. 650, 510 N.W.2d 366 (1993).
NE Code § 25-1224 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 25 - Courts; Civil Procedure|25-1224 - Subpoena; to whom directed; production of documents, information, or tangible things; Supreme Court; powers.

25-1224.  Subpoena; to whom directed; production of documents, information, or tangible things; Supreme Court; powers.(1) A subpoena commanding a person to appear and testify at a trial or deposition may command that at the same time and place specified in the subpoena for the person to appear and testify, the person must produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in the person's possession, custody, or control. The scope of a command to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things pursuant to this section is governed by the rules of discovery in civil cases.(2) The Supreme Court may promulgate a rule for discovery in civil cases that specifies the procedures to be followed when a party seeks to serve a deposition subpoena that commands the person to produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in the person's possession, custody, or control. Any such rule shall not conflict with the laws governing such matters.Source   R.S.1867, Code § 351, p. 452;   R.S.1913, § 7916;   C.S.1922, § 8858;   C.S.1929, § 20-1224;   R.S.1943, § 25-1224;  Laws 2017, LB509, § 2;  Laws 2020, LB912, § 13.  Annotations  A DNA sample is not documentary in nature and is not discoverable under this section. State v. McKinney, 273 Neb. 346, 730 N.W.2d 74 (2007). A subpoena duces tecum for trial imposes a duty upon the witness to bring with him sought-after matter under his control that the law requires him to produce as evidence. City of Omaha v. American Theater Corp., 189 Neb. 441, 203 N.W.2d 155 (1973).