Court Opinion

ID: 9669852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:09:59.550923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:00.618452
License: Public Domain

*918Cassel, J.,
concurring.
I fully agree with the portion of the majority opinion holding that the district court did not err in finding that Sanford failed to prove damages or in granting judgment in favor of Clear Channel. For that reason, I do not agree that it is necessary to address Clear Channel’s cross-appeal, and therefore, I do not join that portion of the majority opinion. “ ‘For [a] court’s opinion to be binding as [a] precedent, there must have been [an] application of [the] judicial mind to [the] precise question necessary to [be] determine[d] in order to fix [the] parties’ rights.’ ” Yoder v. Nu-Enamel Corporation, 140 Neb. 585, 589-90, 300 N.W. 840, 842 (1941), quoting Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n v. Bowman, 99 F.2d 856 (8th Cir. 1938). In other words, a case is not authority for any point not necessary to be passed on to decide the case. Blue Cross and Blue Shield v. Dailey, 268 Neb. 733, 687 N.W.2d 689 (2004). Because Sanford cannot prevail no matter how this court opines upon Clear Channel’s cross-appeal, that question should be left for another day.