1. Adjudicative fact
2. Judicial notice
3. Miscellaneous
1. Adjudicative fact
In determining whether to adjudicate children as to their father, the juvenile court could not take judicial notice of the mother's admission that domestic violence occurred between her and the father in the home, because the admission consisted of adjudicative facts which the father disputed and such facts were not subject to any test by the father at the time of the mother's admission. In re Interest of Lilly S. & Vincent S., 298 Neb. 306, 903 N.W.2d 651 (2017).
Adjudicative facts within the meaning of this section are simply the facts as developed in a particular case, as distinguished from legislative facts, which are established truths, facts, or pronouncements that do not change from case to case but apply universally. Hagelstein v. Swift-Eckrich, 257 Neb. 312, 597 N.W.2d 394 (1999).
A fact is adjudicative if the fact affects the determination of a controverted issue in litigation. State v. Vejvoda, 231 Neb. 668, 438 N.W.2d 461 (1989).
To be judicially noticed, a fact must be uniform and fixed with no doubt as to the fact itself or that it is a matter of common knowledge. Indoor Recreation Enterprises, Inc. v. Douglas, 194 Neb. 715, 235 N.W.2d 398 (1975).
2. Judicial notice
An appellate court may examine its own records and take judicial notice of the proceedings and judgment in a former action involving one of the parties, and it may take judicial notice of a document, including briefs filed in an appeal, in a separate but related action concerning the same subject matter in the same court. Western Ethanol Co. v. Midwest Renewable Energy, 305 Neb. 1, 938 N.W.2d 329 (2020).
While a court may judicially notice its own records under this section, testimony must be transcribed, properly certified, and marked and documents must be marked and identified and each made part of the record so that an appellate court may review the admissibility of each noticed item. In re Estate of Radford, 297 Neb. 748, 901 N.W.2d 261 (2017).
A court may judicially notice adjudicative facts, which are not subject to reasonable dispute, at any stage of the proceeding. Pennfield Oil Co. v. Winstrom, 276 Neb. 123, 752 N.W.2d 588 (2008).
An appellate court may take judicial notice of a document, including briefs filed in an appeal, in a separate but related action concerning the same subject matter in the same court. Pennfield Oil Co. v. Winstrom, 276 Neb. 123, 752 N.W.2d 588 (2008).
In interwoven and interdependent cases, an appellate court may examine its own records and take judicial notice of the proceedings and judgment in a former action involving one of the parties. Pennfield Oil Co. v. Winstrom, 276 Neb. 123, 752 N.W.2d 588 (2008).
The formal introduction into evidence of a court's own prior proceedings should be done by individually noticing those elements considered relevant and competent for the issues presented. Strunk v. Chromy-Strunk, 270 Neb. 917, 708 N.W.2d 821 (2006).
A juvenile court has a right to examine its own records and take judicial notice of its own proceedings and judgment in an interwoven and dependent controversy where the same matters have already been considered and determined. In re Interest of Ty M. & Devon M., 265 Neb. 150, 655 N.W.2d 672 (2003).
When cases are interwoven and interdependent and the controversy involved has already been considered and determined by the court in a former proceeding involving one of the parties now before it, the court has the right to examine its own records and take judicial notice of its own proceedings and judgments in the former action. Appellate courts in this state may take judicial notice of a document, including briefs filed in an appeal, in a separate but related action concerning the same subject matter in the same court. Jessen v. Jessen, 259 Neb. 644, 611 N.W.2d 834 (2000).
A trial court cannot take judicial notice of disputed allegations. In re Interest of N.M. and J.M., 240 Neb. 690, 484 N.W.2d 77 (1992).
A trial court may use appropriate judicial notice in resolving a motion for summary judgment. Gottsch v. Bank of Stapleton, 235 Neb. 816, 458 N.W.2d 443 (1990).
The existence of court records and certain judicial action reflected in a court's records are an appropriate subject for judicial notice. Gottsch v. Bank of Stapleton, 235 Neb. 816, 458 N.W.2d 443 (1990).
An entire trial record cannot be said to fall within the definition of a judicially noted fact as set out in subsection (2) of this section. State v. Ryan, 233 Neb. 74, 444 N.W.2d 610 (1989).
When a fact is neither generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction nor capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, judicial notice of an adjudicative fact is improper. State v. Vejvoda, 231 Neb. 668, 438 N.W.2d 461 (1989).
In a suit on a promissory note, the trial court may take judicial notice of a security agreement signed by the parties contemporaneously with the note when the agreement had been attached as an exhibit to a petition in a separate subsequent action between the same parties and in the same court. State Security Savings Co. v. Pelster, 207 Neb. 158, 296 N.W.2d 702 (1980).
Defendant's claim that a city prosecutor is without authority to prosecute using wiretap evidence was rejected and court took judicial notice of the status and official positions of public officers in the court's jurisdiction. State v. Kolosseus, 198 Neb. 404, 253 N.W.2d 157 (1977).
When offering evidence from prior hearings in a proceeding to terminate parental rights, papers requested to be noticed must be marked, identified and made a part of the record. Testimony must be transcribed, properly certified, marked, and made a part of the record. In re Interest of Tabitha J., 5 Neb. App. 609, 561 N.W.2d 252 (1997).
3. Miscellaneous
Existence of court records and certain judicial action reflected in a court's record are, in accordance with this section, facts which are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. Hagelstein v. Swift-Eckrich, 257 Neb. 312, 597 N.W.2d 394 (1999); State v. Dandridge, 255 Neb. 364, 585 N.W.2d 433 (1998).
The existence of court records and certain judicial action reflected in a court's record are, in accordance with subsection (2)(b) of this section, facts which are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. A court may, therefore, judicially notice existence of its records and the records of another court, but judicial notice of facts reflected in a court's records is subject to the doctrine of collateral estoppel or of res judicata. Dairyland Power Co-op v. State Bd. of Equal. and Assessment, 238 Neb. 696, 472 N.W.2d 363 (1991).
Judicial notice of facts reflected in a court's records is subject to the doctrine of collateral estoppel or of res judicata. Gottsch v. Bank of Stapleton, 235 Neb. 816, 458 N.W.2d 443 (1990).
Judicial notice of an adjudicative fact is a species of evidence, which, if relevant as an ultimate fact or a fact from which an ultimate fact may be inferred, is received without adherence to the Nebraska Evidence Rules otherwise applicable to admissibility of evidence and establishes a fact without formal evidentiary proof. State v. Vejvoda, 231 Neb. 668, 438 N.W.2d 461 (1989).
When neither of the alternative tests prescribed in subsection (2) of this section is satisfied, judicial notice of an adjudicative fact is improper. Everson v. O'Kane, 11 Neb. App. 74, 643 N.W.2d 396 (2002).