Opinion · Nelaw Nebraska

HANLEY v. CRAVEN, 200 Neb. 701 (1978)

JOHN J. HANLEY ET AL., APPELLANTS & CROSS-APPELLEES, v. NELLIEHOUSE MONTGOMERY CRAVEN ET AL., APPELLEES & CROSS-APPELLEES,OLIVE SHOULTS ROSENBERGER ET AL., APPELLEES & CROSS-APPELLANTS,IMPLEADED WITH ARTHUR F. MULLEN ET AL., APPELLANTS & CROSS-APPELLEES., 263 N.W.2d 90 (Neb. 1978)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nelaw Nebraska
Jurisdiction
Nelaw
Date
1978-04-26
Topic
general

HANLEY v. CRAVEN, 200 Neb. 701 (1978) 263 N.W.2d 90 JOHN J. HANLEY ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES, v. NELLIEHOUSE MONTGOMERY CRAVEN ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLEES,OLIVE SHOULTS ROSENBERGER ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS,IMPLEADED WITH ARTHUR F. MULLEN ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed HANLEY v. CRAVEN, 200 Neb. 701 (1978). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

HANLEY v. CRAVEN,200 Neb. 701(1978)
263 N.W.2d 90
JOHN J. HANLEY ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES, v. NELLIE
HOUSE MONTGOMERY CRAVEN ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLEES,
OLIVE SHOULTS ROSENBERGER ET AL., APPELLEES AND CROSS-APPELLANTS,
IMPLEADED WITH ARTHUR F. MULLEN ET AL., APPELLANTS AND CROSS-APPELLEES.
No. 41249.
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
Filed April 26, 1978.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
Appeal from the District Court for Thurston County: WALTER G. HUBER, Judge. On motion for rehearing. See ante p. 81,263 N.W.2d 79, for original opinion. Motion for rehearing overruled.
Edmund D. McEachen and Michael G. Lessmann of Baird, Holm, McEachen, Pedersen, Hamman Haggart, Bernard T. Pipher, Thomas C. Emery, and Kenneth H. Beckenhauer of Beckenhauer and Beckenhauer, for appellants and cross-appellees.

Warren S. Zweiback of Zweiback, Brady, Kasher, Festerson Pavel, and Daniel J. Duffy of Cassem, Tierney, Adams Gotch, for appellees and cross-appellees.

Warren S. Zweiback of Zweiback, Brady, Kasher, Festerson Pavel, for appellees and cross-appellants.
Heard before WHITE, C. J., SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, BRODKEY, and WHITE, JJ.
SPENCER, J.
The motion of Robert and James House for rehearing is overruled. We did not pass upon the validity of the stipulation in our opinion. That is a matter first for the consideration of the trial court. To make this clear, we amend the final sentence of our opinion as follows:

We remand the cause to the District Court with directionsPage 702to enter judgment in accordance with this opinion to determine the heirs of the blood of John R. House as of December 29, 1974; to determine the validity and effect of the trial stipulation entered into by grandnieces and grandnephews of John R. House with respect to their respective shares, if any, in the testator's property; and to enter a decree of partition.