Opinion ID: 2222259
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: summary judgment and record on appeal

Text: Before assessing the correctness of the district court's ruling on Ameritrade's motion for summary judgment, it is necessary to ascertain the scope of the record properly before the district court. The record reflects that during the hearing on Ameritrade's motion for summary judgment, Ameritrade's counsel offered and the district court admitted in evidence two exhibits, exhibits 6 and 7. The record further reflects that after the hearing was adjourned, appellants marked two additional exhibits, exhibits 8 and 9. According to the record on appeal, however, these additional exhibits were neither offered nor admitted into evidence for purposes of the summary judgment hearing. Furthermore, for the sake of completeness, we note that on April 30, several months after the district court's January 3, 2002, ruling on Ameritrade's motion for summary judgment and appellants' filing of this appeal, the parties entered into a stipulation with regard to the record. Although not so ordered or certified, the parties stipulated that certain documents, marked as exhibits 10 through 28, were to be simply marked and made a part of the bill of exceptions and that other documents, marked as exhibits 29 through 32, were to be marked and made a part of the bill of exceptions and received into evidence. In connection with motions for summary judgment, we have stated that [u]nless the [exhibit] is marked, offered, and accepted, it does not become part of the record and cannot be considered ... as evidence in the case. Altaffer v. Majestic Roofing, 263 Neb. 518, 520-21, 641 N.W.2d 34, 37 (2002). We have also stated that exhibits which were not offered, marked, or received by the trial judge at the summary judgment hearing ... may not be considered on appeal. Rodriguez v. Nielsen, 259 Neb. 264, 269, 609 N.W.2d 368, 372 (2000). See, also, DeCosta Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Kirkland, 210 Neb. 815, 316 N.W.2d 772 (1982) (stating that exhibits not received into evidence at trial court level do not form part of bill of exceptions on appeal). In the instant case, the only exhibits marked, offered, and received in evidence by the district court at the hearing on Ameritrade's motion for summary judgment were Ameritrade's exhibits 6 and 7. Although marked as exhibits, the record on appeal does not reflect that exhibits 8 through 32 were either offered or admitted in evidence by the district court. Because these additional exhibits were neither offered nor admitted in evidence, they were not properly before the district court in its evaluation of the motion for summary judgment and are not part of the record which can be considered in this appeal in which we are asked to review the propriety of the district court's ruling on Ameritrade's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, in considering appellants' assignments of error, the evidentiary items before this court are exhibits 6 and 7. In connection with the preemption analysis, we also refer to appellants' petition. See Hamilton v. Nestor, 265 Neb. 757, 659 N.W.2d 321 (2003).