Alexandra Courtney, appellant.
Rene Jimenez, appellee.
Judgments: Injunction: Appeal and Error. A
protection order is analogous to an injunction. Accordingly,
the grant or denial of a protection order is reviewed de novo
on the record.
Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory
interpretation presents a question of law, which an appellate
court resolves independently of the trial court.
Moot Question: Jurisdiction: Appeal and
Error. Because mootness is a justiciability doctrine
that operates to prevent courts from exercising jurisdiction,
an appellate court reviews mootness determinations under the
same standard of review as other jurisdictional questions.
Judgments: Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error.
When a jurisdictional question does not involve a factual
dispute, its determination is a matter of law, which requires
an appellate court to reach a conclusion independent of the
decisions made by the lower courts.
Moot Question: Words and Phrases. A case
becomes moot when the issues initially presented in
litigation cease to exist or the litigants lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome of litigation.
Moot Question. As a general rule, a moot
case is subject to summary dismissal.
Moot Question: Appeal and Error. Under
certain circumstances, an appellate court may entertain the
issues presented by a moot case when the claims presented
involve a matter of great public interest or when other
rights or liabilities may be affected by the case's
___. When determining whether a case involves a matter of
public interest, an appellate court considers (1) the public
or private nature of the question presented, (2) the
desirability of an authoritative adjudication for future
guidance of public officials, and (3) the likelihood of
future recurrence of the same or a similar problem.
Neb.App. 76] 9. Motions to Vacate: Time. A
court has inherent power to vacate or modify its own
judgments at any time during the term at which those
judgments are pronounced, and such power exists entirely
independent of any statute.
Judgments: Statutes: Time. The 5-day period
set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-925(1) (Reissue 2016)
is not central to the purpose of the domestic abuse
protection order statutes; once the ex parte protection order
has been granted, the fundamental purpose of the statute has
Pleadings: Time. The 5-day period to file a
show cause hearing request as set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 42-925(1) (Reissue 2016) is directory and not
mandatory. Accordingly, failing to file a request for a show
cause hearing within that 5-day period does not preclude the
later filing of a motion to bring the matter back before the
court, including the filing of a motion to vacate an ex parte
from the District Court for Douglas County: Leigh Ann
Retelsdorf, Judge. Affirmed.
T. Courtney, PC, L.L.O., for appellant.
I. Abrahamson, of Abrahamson Law Office, for appellee.
Chief Judge, and Pirtle and Bishop, Judges.
parte domestic abuse protection order was entered by the
Douglas County District Court in favor of Alexandra Courtney
and against Rene Jimenez. Jimenez did not request a hearing
to challenge the ex parte order within 5 days as set forth in
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-925(1) (Reissue 2016); however,
Jimenez subsequently filed a motion to vacate the order.
Courtney appeals from the district court's order vacating
the ex parte order. We affirm.
filed a petition and affidavit for an ex parte domestic abuse
protection order on May 6, 2016. The petition [25 Neb.App.
77] indicates that Courtney and Jimenez have a 3-year-old
child together, that a "Paternity/Custody" case was
pending between them, and that another protection order
against Jimenez (in favor of Courtney) was set to expire on
May 8. Where the form requested the facts of the most recent
incidents of domestic abuse, Courtney described the following
incidents: First, she alleged that on April 29, 2016, Jimenez
sent her a text message "about our daughter and death,
" which she took as a death threat to her (Courtney). In
a second incident, on October 16, 2015, Jimenez told a
mediator that "the protection order would be over soon
[and] 'he'll be able to handle this himself"
Courtney said that "[t]his made me very afraid because
of the way I know that he handles things." Courtney next
listed as an incident of domestic abuse, "See previous
affidavit submitted on 5/7/2015." Finally, Courtney
alleged that on May 6, 2016, after she spoke to the county
attorney about Jimenez' April 29 text message, she was
informed that the text message had become part of a
'"warrant case'"; she thought this would
"further provoke" Jimenez.
district court entered an ex parte domestic abuse protection
order against ...