Opinion ID: 2071399
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We first note Spees' argument that this case should be dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter before it. Weeder v. Central Comm. College, 269 Neb. 114, 691 N.W.2d 508 (2005). Spees contends that CORS has been released from this case pursuant to a high-low settlement agreement and that since Spees' alleged negligence occurred within the scope of his employment, he was an agent of CORS, and the release of his principal also released him from liability. Thus, Spees argues that with respect to him, the case is moot and should be dismissed. As a general rule, a moot case is subject to summary dismissal. Krajicek v. Gale, 267 Neb. 623, 677 N.W.2d 488 2004). However, dismissal of this entire appeal would be improper, as Smith also takes issue with the court's partial summary judgment in favor of NORS. Moreover, as will be made clear below, the issues presented in Smith's appeal are intertwined, and disposing of his arguments with respect to NORS requires us to first dispose of his arguments with respect to Spees and CORS  their alleged negligence is essential to analyzing the chain of causation in which NORS' negligence was, allegedly, a link. A moot case is one which seeks to determine a question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights, in which the issues presented are no longer alive. In re Estate of Jeffrey B., supra . Since we must consider Smith's arguments with respect to Spees and CORS regardless of any settlement agreement, the issues presented by Smith's appeal are not moot.