Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Interest of NLB

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided January 26, 1990No. 89-305Published

1DissentCaporale, J.

Although I agree with the outcome the majority reaches, I *287must dissent on procedural grounds.

In deference to the fact that no question as to the validity of the poverty affidavit was raised and briefed by the parties, the majority does not comment on the State’s representation in its motion for dismissal that the poverty affidavit was “signed by” the appellant. In actuality, the affidavit was executed not by the appellant, but by her attorney.

As the majority notes, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301 (Reissue 1989) requires that the impoverished appellant, not her or his attorney, execute the affidavit…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Porter v. PorterNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Jackson v. FincherCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
  3. Elder v. WhiteheadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1858
  4. Vance v. VanceMississippi Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Cohen v. HautcharowAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1903

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API