Opinion ID: 1937369
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: interest and fees

Text: Finally, Rose contends the trial court erred in the amounts awarded as fees for Roses' attorney and expert witness and, further, that the court erred regarding interest on Roses' recovery through the eminent domain proceedings. However, nowhere in Rose's brief is there any discussion regarding the alleged errors concerning fees and interest. Neb.Ct.R. of Prac. 9 D(1)(d) (rev. 1989) provides, [C]onsideration of the case will be limited to errors assigned and discussed. (Emphasis supplied.) To be considered by this court, errors must be assigned and discussed in the brief of the one claiming that prejudicial error has occurred. Fee v. Fee, 223 Neb. 128, 134, 388 N.W.2d 122, 126 (1986). See, also, Bohaty v. Briard, 219 Neb. 42, 361 N.W.2d 502 (1985) (argument is an effort to establish belief by a course of reasoning). Because Rose has failed to discuss the errors regarding fees and interest, we will not consider these errors alleged by Rose but not argued in Rose's appellate brief. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed in all respects. AFFIRMED.