State v. Sator
| Decision Date | 12 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 39820,39820 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Lawrence SATOR, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
This court does not take judicial notice of municipal ordinances and a failure to properly present an ordinance that is being attacked precludes our consideration of it here.
Dean E. Erickson, Lincoln, for appellant.
David V. Chebatoris, Plattsmouth, Ronald D. Svoboda, Clements & Svoboda, Weeping Water, for appellee.
Heard before WHITE, C.J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, NEWTON, CLINTON and BRODKEY, JJ.
Defendant was charged and convicted in the county court of Cass County, Nebraska, of improperly parking a trailer house in violation of ordinance No. 56 of the Village of Murdock, Nebraska, and was fined $25 and costs. He thereafter appealed his conviction to the District Court for Cass County, Nebraska, and in connection with his appeal filed a motion to quash further proceedings, alleging that the municipal ordinance under which he was convicted was illegal and unconstitutional under both the federal and state Constitutions. Defendant's motion to quash was thereafter argued and overruled, and the case set for trial de novo on the record at a subsequent date. Counsel did not appear for trial at the appointed date, whereupon the court affirmed the judgment of the county court of Cass County upon the evidence and the record, and ordered the defendant to pay a fine of $25 and costs. Defendant's motion for a new trial was subsequently overruled, and defendant now appeals to this court. We affirm.
There is only one assignment of error set forth in defendant's brief, which is that the court erred in its findings that the ordinance in question was not in violation of the statutes of the State of Nebraska and of the Constitution of the State of Nebraska and the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, however, the ordinance assailed as illegal and unconstitutional in this appeal was never introduced in evidence in either the county court or the District Court, although it appears that the county judge may have had a copy of the ordinance before him during the trial. In any event, it is not a part of the record in this case, and the only place where it may be found is in the brief of the defendant, where it is partially summarized and partially quoted. We do not believe the ordinance is properly before us for consideration, and we decline to pass upon the contentions of the defendant raised in this appeal.
It is the general rule that an appellate court ordinarily does not take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance that does not appear in the record on appeal. 5 Am.Jur.2d, Appeal and Error, § 741, p. 186. This court has repeatedly so ruled. In State v. Novak, 153 Neb. 596, 45 N.W.2d 625 (1951), this court stated: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lewis, S-90-1236
...is missing from the prosecution's case through oversight or deliberate deletion. Could not happen? Take a look at State v. Sator, 194 Neb. 120, 230 N.W.2d 224 (1975); State v. Radcliff, 188 Neb. 236, 196 N.W.2d 119 (1972); and State v. Novak, 153 Neb. 596, 45 N.W.2d 625 The only explanation......
-
State v. Buescher, S-91-285
...See, also, State v. Long, 206 Neb. 446, 293 N.W.2d 391 (1980); State v. Korf, 201 Neb. 64, 266 N.W.2d 86 (1978); State v. Sator, 194 Neb. 120, 230 N.W.2d 224 (1975); Foley v. State, 42 Neb. 233, 60 N.W. 574 Without benefit of the ordinances in question, neither can we determine whether the ......
-
State v. Long
...ordinance creating the offense charged will be presumed where the ordinance is not properly set forth in the record. State v. Sator, 194 Neb. 120, 230 N.W.2d 224 (1975). Upon the record before us, there is no basis upon which it could be said the ordinances were unconstitutional, vague, or ......
-
South Maple Street Ass'n v. Board of Adjustment, City of Chadron, 39807
... ... and shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law.' Chapter 84, article 9, R.R.S.1943, is applicable only to agencies of the state government. 'In the absence of a special requirement, a board of adjustment is not required to include findings of fact or a statement of the ... ...