Opinion ID: 2123906
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: evidence admitted for a limited purpose

Text: As previously mentioned, KN offered exhibits 1 to 8, which included the study, not for the truth of what is contained in the exhibits, but solely to show what transpired at the hearings below. Apparently for that reason, the Court of Appeals concluded that KN had failed to meet its burden of proof, because KN's cost-of-service study was not offered as substantive evidence concerning rates. If admissible evidence is offered or received for a limited purpose, the evidence is admitted only for the limited purpose specified. See, Baer v. Schaap, 171 Neb. 347, 106 N.W.2d 468 (1960); Kucaba v. Kucaba, 146 Neb. 116, 18 N.W.2d 645 (1945). In the present case, KN's cost-of-service study was not offered for the truth of its contents concerning costs affecting rates, but was offered merely to show what had occurred during the municipal hearings held before KN filed its injunctive actions in the district court. Consequently, KN's study may not be considered as proof of KN's cost of service in reference to the question whether the rates are confiscatory. However, the trial court received into evidence numerous other exhibits, including exhibits 11 to 22, which summarized the same financial data contained in KN's cost-of-service study, showed historical operating revenues and expenses, and projected returns under both the rates set by the municipalities and those proposed by KN. Thus, exhibits 11 to 22 contain evidence of KN's cost of service. Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred by concluding that KN failed to produce evidence of its cost of service.