Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

(6) The individual engaged in sexual intercourse in this state and the child may have been
conceived by that act of intercourse;
(7) The individual asserted parentage in this state pursuant to section 43-104.02, 71-628, 71-
640.01, or 71-640.02 with the Department of Health and Human Services Finance and Support;
or
(8) There is any other basis consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States
for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
(b) The basis of personal jurisdiction set forth in subsection (a) of this section or in any other law
of this state shall not be used to acquire personal jurisdiction for a tribunal of this state to modify
a child support order of another state unless the requirements of section 42-746 or 42-747.03 are
met.
Source: Laws 1993, LB 500, § 5; Laws 1996, LB 1044, § 101; Laws 2003, LB 148, § 46.
Bayliss v. Bayliss, 8 Neb. App. 269, 592 N.W.2d 165 (1999)
(Appellate Jurisdiction) Generally, once an appeal has been perfected, the trial
court has no jurisdiction to determine any issues regarding the subject matter of the
litigation.
(District court could not entertain an application to modify child support filed while a
previous modification of child support was on appeal. It could still address issues
such as visitation that were not subject of the appeal.)
Currie v. Chief School Bus Serv., 250 Neb. 872, 553 N.W.2d 469 (1996),
Although an extrajurisdictional act of a lower court cannot vest an appellate court
with jurisdiction to review the merits of an appeal, the appellate court has jurisdiction
and, moreover, the duty to determine whether the lower court had the power, that is,
the subject matter jurisdiction, to enter the judgment or other final order sought to be
reviewed.
Davis v. Choctaw Constr., 280 Neb. 714,789 N.W.2d 698 (Oct. 2010)
Judgment entered for employee in contract dispute. Employer appeals, and for the first time on
appeal raises issue of court jurisdiction, because there was no service within 6 months of the filing of
the lawsuit. Employee argued issue was waived because the employer rolled the dice at trial in the
district court and lost, so they couldn’t raise it on appeal. Held: No jurisdiction; case dismissed.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217 (Reissue 2008) is self-executing, so that an action is
dismissed by operation of law, without any action by either the defendant or the
court, as to any defendant who is named in the action and not served with process
within 6 months after the complaint is filed.
After dismissal of an action by operation of law under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-217
(Reissue 2008), there is no longer an action pending and the district court has no
jurisdiction to make any further orders except to formalize the dismissal. If any
orders are made following the dismissal, they are a nullity.
Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by any party or by the
court sua sponte.
Gurnon v. Harrison, 245 Neb. 295, 512 N.W.2d 386 (1994)
We see no reason to treat the modification of a filiation decree differently than the
modification of a divorce decree. In divorce proceedings, we view an application to
modify as a supplementary proceeding. We, therefore, hold that this modification
proceeding is supplementary to the filiation proceeding and not an independent
- 110 -