Opinion ID: 1345839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: badura, cullan, and meisinger

Text: We next address Badura, Cullan, and Meisinger's purported cross-appeal. Badura, Cullan, and Meisinger filed a Brief of Appellee Everett D. Larson with this court. While assignments of error are made, there is no designation of a cross-appeal. In In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., 258 Neb. 131, 602 N.W.2d 439 (1999), we refused to address assignments of error in an appellee's brief not designating a cross-appeal. We explained that the appellate courts of this state have always refused to consider a prayer for affirmative relief where such a claim is raised in a brief designated as that of an appellee and have repeatedly indicated that a cross-appeal must be properly designated, pursuant to rule 9D(4), if affirmative relief is to be obtained. Id. at 145-46, 602 N.W.2d at 450-51. Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 9D(4) (rev.2001) provides: Where the brief of appellee presents a cross-appeal, it shall be noted on the cover of the brief and it shall be set forth in a separate division of the brief. This division shall be headed Brief on Cross-Appeal and shall be prepared in the same manner and under the same rules as the brief of appellant. Parties wishing to secure appellate review of their claims for relief must be aware of, and abide by, the rules of this court and the Nebraska Court of Appeals in presenting such claims. In re Interest of Natasha H. & Sierra H., supra . Any party who fails to properly identify and present its claim does so at its peril. Id. Badura, Cullan, and Meisinger have not complied with the rules of this court, and we therefore do not address their assignments of error.