TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Williams v. McDowell

Frank L. Williams v. Alla Lantz: Hetta R. McDowell, appellants: Mattie C. Williams

Williams v. McDowell, 244 N.W. 400 (Neb. 1932)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 7, 1932
Docket
No. 28049
Judges
Day, Dean, Eberly, Good, Paine, Rose
Citations
244 N.W. 400123 Neb. 7901932 Neb. LEXIS 282

Opinion of the Court — Rose

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Rose, J.

This is an action involving conflicting claims to rights in a private alleyway opening from the west into Sixteenth street between R and S streets in the city of Lincoln. From a decree of the district court Gamma Phi Beta Building Association and Hetta R. McDowell, defendants and cross-petitioners, appealed to the supreme court. An opinion containing a statement of the case and the rulings therein is reported in Williams v. Lantz, ante, p. 67, to which reference is made to avoid a restatement of the facts and questions presented by the appeal.

On motion by Gamma Phi Beta Building Association, a reargument was granted on the ground that the supreme court did not consider or determine an assignment of error to the effect that the trial court erred in finding and adjudging that Hetta R. McDowell acquired a right to a private walk and driveway from her premises across the lot of the Gamma Phi Beta Building Association to the alley described. Should there have been a ruling on this- assignment of error?

*791 The record shows that the sorority did not appeal as against McDowell. On this feature of the case the judgment was in favor of McDowell and she did not appeal as against the sorority. They were joint appellants. Neither was designated as appellee or as cross-appellant pursuant to the rules of the supreme court. The appeal, therefore, did not present a controversy between the sorority and McDowell. Consequently that matter was properly disregarded in the former determination of questions presented by the appeal.

Reaffirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1946: 11959: 119462026peak 1946 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Badura v. Lyons23 N.W.2d 678 (Neb. 1946)
  2. Lash v. Erisman94 N.W.2d 32 (Neb. 1959)

Most recent

  1. Lash v. Erisman94 N.W.2d 32 (Neb. 1959)
  2. Badura v. Lyons23 N.W.2d 678 (Neb. 1946)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list