Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

239 Neb. 617

Moser v. Moser

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided November 22, 1991

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1991-11-22

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently February 1992

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““In an appeal involving an action for dissolution of marriage, the Supreme Court’s review of a trial court’s judgment is de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge, whose judgment will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. In such de novo review, when the evidence is in conflict, the Supreme Court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Policky v. Policky

Relies on Ritter v. Ritter · Huffman v. Huffman · Schulze v. Schulze

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-11-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Judee E. Moser appeals the judgment of the district court which awarded sole custody of the parties’ minor child to the child’s father, Randall S. Moser, with specific visitation rights to Judee Moser as mother of the child.

In an appeal involving an action for dissolution of marriage, the Supreme Court’s review of a trial court’s judgment is de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge, whose judgment will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. In such de novo review, when the evidence is in conflict, the Supreme Court considers, and may give weight to, the fact that the trial judge heard and observed *618the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.

¶2Huffman v. Huffman, 236 Neb. 101, 104, 459 N.W.2d 215, 219 (1990). Accord, Schulze v. Schulze, 238 Neb. 81, 469 N.W.2d 139 (1991); Ritter v. Ritter, 234 Neb. 203, 450 N.W.2d 204 (1990). “Child custody in a proceeding to dissolve a marriage is a matter within the trial court’s discretion.” Ritter v. Ritter, supra at 208, 450 N.W.2d at 209. Accord Peterson v. Peterson, 224 Neb. 557, 399 N.W.2d 792 (1987).

¶3From our de novo examination and review of the record, we have determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Huffman v. Huffman, supra.

¶4Affirmed.

/239/neb/617 · .json · Public domain