1. Jurisdiction

2. Miscellaneous

1. Jurisdiction

The purpose of subdivision (11) of this section is to vest jurisdiction over adoption proceedings—including paternity determinations—with the county court or the separate juvenile court. Peterson v. Jacobitz, 309 Neb. 486, 961 N.W.2d 258 (2021).

A county court has jurisdiction to construe a power of attorney or review an agent's conduct and grant appropriate relief. In re Estate of Adelung, 306 Neb. 646, 947 N.W.2d 269 (2020).

County courts have not been given authority to decide motions to transfer to juvenile court in cases in which they lack jurisdiction to try the case. State v. A.D., 305 Neb. 154, 939 N.W.2d 484 (2020).

The county courts have the power to construe wills. Brinkman v. Brinkman, 302 Neb. 315, 923 N.W.2d 380 (2019).

Despite the Legislature's grant of exclusive jurisdiction over adoption matters to county or juvenile courts under subsection (11) of this section, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is part of Nebraska's organic law. Thus, district courts have general, overlapping jurisdiction over an adoption challenge when a parent claims his or her child is being illegally detained for an adoption in a habeas proceeding. Jesse B. v. Tylee H., 293 Neb. 973, 883 N.W.2d 1 (2016).

The Legislature cannot limit or take away the broad and general jurisdiction of the district courts, as conferred by the Nebraska Constitution. But it can give county courts concurrent original jurisdiction over the same subject matter. Jesse B. v. Tylee H., 293 Neb. 973, 883 N.W.2d 1 (2016).

The concurrent, original jurisdiction conferred on a county court under subdivision (7) of this section is more expansive than the jurisdiction conferred by section 25-2740(3) on a county court sitting as a juvenile court or a separate juvenile court. The jurisdiction conferred by section 25-2740(3) is neither exclusive nor original, because the conditions of section 43-2,113 must first be satisfied. Those conditions require a district court to transfer the case to juvenile court and the juvenile court to consent to the transfer. Molczyk v. Molczyk, 285 Neb. 96, 825 N.W.2d 435 (2013).

In common-law and equity actions relating to decedents' estates, the county courts have concurrent original jurisdiction with the district courts. When the jurisdiction of the county court and the district court is concurrent, the basic principles of judicial administration require that the court which first acquires jurisdiction should retain it to the exclusion of the other court. Washington v. Conley, 273 Neb. 908, 734 N.W.2d 306 (2007).

Pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the county court has exclusive original jurisdiction of all proceedings regarding a decedent's estate. Mischke v. Mischke, 253 Neb. 439, 571 N.W.2d 248 (1997).

This section does not divest a county court of its subject matter jurisdiction to modify its own void judgments. State v. LeGrand, 249 Neb. 1, 541 N.W.2d 380 (1995).

Subsection (4) of this section does not vest equity jurisdiction in the county courts. Iodence v. Potmesil, 239 Neb. 387, 476 N.W.2d 554 (1991).

This section clearly grants county courts jurisdiction over actions involving speeding violations. State v. Jones, 209 Neb. 296, 307 N.W.2d 126 (1981).

County courts have exclusive original jurisdiction of all matters related to decedents' estates, including the probate of wills and the construction thereof, and all other jurisdiction heretofore provided and not specifically repealed by Laws 1972, L.B. 1032, and such other jurisdiction as thereafter provided by law. County courts, in exercising exclusive original jurisdiction over estates, may apply equitable principles to matters within probate jurisdiction. In re Estate of Layton, 207 Neb. 646, 300 N.W.2d 802 (1981).

Notwithstanding this section, the district court retains jurisdiction in injunction actions brought to enforce zoning ordinances. Village of Springfield v. Hevelone, 195 Neb. 37, 236 N.W.2d 811 (1975).

Subdivision (11) of this section vests exclusive original jurisdiction over adoption proceedings in the county courts. Peterson v. Jacobitz, 29 Neb. App. 486, 955 N.W.2d 329 (2021).

Subdivision (1) of this section gives county courts exclusive original jurisdiction of all matters relating to decedents' estates. In re Estate of Stretesky, 29 Neb. App. 338, 955 N.W.2d 1 (2021).

Subsection (1) of this section confers upon the county court exclusive original jurisdiction of all matters relating to the decedents' estates, including the probate of wills and the construction thereof, except as provided in sections 30-2464(c) and 30-2486. Lenners v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 18 Neb. App. 772, 793 N.W.2d 357 (2010).

This section, combined with sections 25-2740 and 43-247, vests juvenile courts and county courts sitting as juvenile courts with jurisdiction over a custody modification proceeding if the court already has jurisdiction over the juvenile under a separate provision of section 43-247. In re Interest of Ethan M., 18 Neb. App. 63, 774 N.W.2d 766 (2009).

Jurisdiction over confirmation of arbitration awards is conferred upon the district court, and the county court has no such jurisdiction. MBNA America Bank v. Hansen, 16 Neb. App. 536, 745 N.W.2d 609 (2008).

2. Miscellaneous

A parent can challenge the legality of an adoption by objecting to the proceeding in county court. But seeking a writ of habeas corpus is an equally available remedy for a parent's claim that his or her child is being illegally detained for an adoption. Jesse B. v. Tylee H., 293 Neb. 973, 883 N.W.2d 1 (2016).

When a district court has exercised jurisdiction over a habeas proceeding to challenge the legality of an adoption before an adoption proceeding is filed in county court, the doctrine of jurisdictional priority requires the district court to retain jurisdiction over the matter to the exclusion of the county court until it determines whether the child is being legally detained for an adoption. Jesse B. v. Tylee H., 293 Neb. 973, 883 N.W.2d 1 (2016).

Although county courts lack general equity jurisdiction, they may apply equitable principles to matters that are within their exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, when a county court has exclusive jurisdiction over a guardianship case, it can recognize a petitioner's in loco parentis status in determining the petitioner's standing to seek visitation or custody. But it cannot confer permanent in loco parentis status on a petitioner in advance of a custody dispute because the doctrine is transitory. In re Guardianship of Brydon P., 286 Neb. 661, 838 N.W.2d 262 (2013).

The certification of a civil proceeding, in which the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory limit, is now mandatory only upon the request of a party. Hunt v. Trackwell, 262 Neb. 688, 635 N.W.2d 106 (2001).

When a claim presented in the manner described in section 30-2486 and within the time limit described in section 30-2485 is disallowed by the personal representative, the dissatisfied claimant may, within 60 days of the mailing of notice of the disallowance, commence a proceeding against the personal representative in the district court insofar as the claim relates to matters within the district court's chancery or common-law jurisdiction. Holdrege Co-op Assn. v. Wilson, 236 Neb. 541, 463 N.W.2d 312 (1990).

One suing a parent under the family purpose doctrine for damages caused by a member of the family, who was killed in an accident, need not first file a claim in the estate of the decedent. Marcus v. Everett, 195 Neb. 518, 239 N.W.2d 487 (1976).

In the exercise of its jurisdiction over a custody modification proceeding, a county court sitting as a juvenile court cannot permanently modify child custody through the mere adoption of a case plan pursuant to section 43-285(2). In re Interest of Ethan M., 18 Neb. App. 63, 774 N.W.2d 766 (2009).