Nebraska Supreme Court, 1973

Fritch v. Fritch

Nebraska Supreme Court · Decided December 21, 1973 · Spencer, Smith, Clinton, Kuns, Flory

213 N.W.2d 445; 191 Neb. 29; 1973 Neb. LEXIS 613 (North Western Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

State Ex Rel. Kaipus v. Board of Trustees of Sanitary & Improvement District No. 113 (Neb. 1978)
Spanheimer Roofing & Supply Co. v. Thompson (Neb. 1977)
Kizzier Chevrolet Co. v. General Motors Corp. (Neb. 1985)
SCHMUECKER BROS. IMPLEMENT CO. v. Sobotka (Neb. 1984)
Nichols v. Nichols (Neb. 2014)
Kilgore v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (Neb. 2009)
Strunk v. Chromy-Strunk (Neb. 2006)
Sinn v. City of Seward (Neb. Ct. App. 1994)
State v. McDowell (Neb. 1994)
State v. McPherson (Neb. Ct. App. 1993)
Lager v. Schumacher (Neb. Ct. App. 1993)
Garber v. State (Neb. 1992)
Schaad v. Simms (Neb. 1992)
Lemburg Through Lemburg v. Adams County (Neb. 1987)
State Ex Rel. Kandt v. North Platte Baptist Church (Neb. 1985)
Z & S Construction Co. v. Collister (Neb. 1982)
In re Interest of Wolkow (Neb. 1980)
Valentine Production Credit Ass'n v. Spencer Foods, Inc. (Neb. 1976)
Marcotte v. City of Omaha (Neb. 1976)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Kuns, District Judge.

Thisi is an appeal from two orders in contempt proceedings and an oral allowance of attorney’s fees in connection therewith.

Both parties sought to have the other held in contempt for failure to obey previous orders of the court in a divorce proceeding. The trial court ordered that plaintiff appellee be held in contempt “unless she pay defendant the sum of $150.00 on or before March 15, 1973.” In a separate order, the trial court ordered that defendant appellant “will be found in contempt if such payments are not made by March 15, 1973.” Both orders are conditional. They are not final and are not subject to appeal. § 25-1911, R. R. S. 1943; Essay v. Essay, 180 Neb. 291, 142 N. W. 2d 337.

The bill of exceptions shows that the trial court made an oral pronouncement of an allowance of attorney’s fees to appellee’s attorney at the conclusion of the contempt hearings. No notation thereof was made on the trial docket. This was not the rendition of a judgment in accordance with the statute. § 25-1301, R. R. S. 1943.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.