25-2218. Common law; applicability.
364 words·~2 min read·
/ne/chapter-25/25-2218A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
The rule of the common law that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed has no application to this code.
1. Construction
2. Miscellaneous
1. Construction
Liberal construction cannot, for the purpose of embracing other persons than those to whom a statute is expressly made applicable, supply that which the Legislature has omitted. Downing v. Schwenck, 138 Neb. 395, 293 N.W. 278 (1940).
Provisions of code of civil procedure must be liberally construed. Orchard & Wilhelm Co. v. North, 125 Neb. 723, 251 N.W. 895 (1933).
Liberal construction required sustaining of jurisdiction of district court in workmen's compensation case on filing of petition for appeal, and to require clerk to issue summons without praecipe. McIntosh v. Standard Oil Co., 121 Neb. 92, 236 N.W. 152 (1931).
Statute, providing how and who may intervene, should be liberally construed. Webb v. Patterson, 114 Neb. 346, 207 N.W. 522 (1926).
Petition should be liberally construed as against objection that it stated two causes of action instead of one jointly. Pier v. Cauley, 98 Neb. 80, 152 N.W. 298 (1915).
Remedial statute should be liberally construed. Rine v. Rine, 91 Neb. 248, 135 N.W. 1051 (1912).
Statutory procedure for adoption of children should be liberally construed. Ferguson v. Herr, 64 Neb. 659, 94 N.W. 542 (1903), reversing 64 Neb. 649, 90 N.W. 625 (1902).
Where petition is first attacked by objection to introduction of testimony, it will be liberally construed. Fire Assn. of Philadelphia v. Ruby, 60 Neb. 216, 82 N.W. 629 (1900).
Courts are prohibited from applying rule of strict construction to provisions of code of civil procedure. Kearney Electric Co. v. Laughlin, 45 Neb. 390, 63 N.W. 941 (1895).
2. Miscellaneous
This section, along with another section, forms the basis of the right to bring a cross-suit. Rogers v. Western Electric Co., 179 Neb. 359, 138 N.W.2d 423 (1965).
Where party sought to reserve right to introduce further evidence, trial court abused discretion in denying defendant leave to withdraw motion to dismiss and introduce further evidence. Adams v. Seeley, 94 Neb. 243, 142 N.W. 541 (1913).
Cross-petition for relief against the plaintiff is recognized. Armstrong v. Mayer, 69 Neb. 187, 95 N.W. 51 (1903).