The Nebraska Supreme Court issued an opinion in *State of Nebraska v. Donald G. Anthony* that reinforces strict compliance requirements for appellate procedures, warning attorneys that procedural failures could result in waiver of errors or dismissal of appeals entirely.
Filed Jan. 30, 2026, the decision in case No. S-25-057 establishes clear consequences for parties who fail to follow the Nebraska Supreme Court's appellate rules. The court held that parties seeking appellate review must strictly abide by court rules, and any failure to properly identify and present claims puts appellants at significant risk.
The court's opinion specifically addresses Nebraska Court Rule of Appellate Procedure Section 2-109(D), revised in 2024, which governs how appellate briefs must be structured and presented. According to the decision, depending on the specific circumstances of each case, failure to comply with these mandates may result in three potential outcomes: the appellate court may waive the error entirely, proceed with only a plain error review, or decline to conduct any review whatsoever.
This represents a significant warning to the legal community about the importance of procedural compliance in criminal appeals. The court's language suggests a stricter approach to appellate procedure enforcement, potentially affecting how attorneys prepare and present their cases on appeal.
The decision also clarifies the standard for plain error review in Nebraska courts. The court held that plain error may be found on appeal when an error was unasserted or uncomplained of at trial, but is plainly evident from the record, prejudicially affects a litigant's substantial right, and would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process if left uncorrected.
This plain error standard provides a narrow avenue for appellate relief when procedural requirements are not met, but the court's emphasis on strict rule compliance suggests this exception will be applied sparingly.
The opinion also addresses pleading requirements and verification standards. The court reaffirmed that historically, "verified" for pleading purposes means that the signer believed the facts stated in the pleading to be true. Additionally, the court held that when the title of a filing does not reflect its substance, courts should treat pleadings or motions based on their actual content rather than their titles.
Regarding postconviction proceedings, the court noted requirements for separate verification in proper form, supported by oath, though the available excerpt does not provide complete details on this aspect of the ruling.
The decision in *Anthony* appears to be part of a broader trend toward stricter procedural enforcement in Nebraska appellate courts. The 2024 revision of Nebraska Court Rule of Appellate Procedure Section 2-109(D) suggests the court system has been working to clarify and strengthen appellate procedure requirements.
For practicing attorneys, this decision serves as a clear reminder that appellate advocacy requires meticulous attention to procedural details. The court's warning that parties who fail to properly identify and present claims "do so at their own peril" indicates that procedural shortcuts or oversights could prove fatal to appeals.
The ruling also emphasizes the importance of proper issue preservation at the trial level. Since the court noted that plain error review applies only to errors "unasserted or uncomplained of at trial," attorneys must ensure that objections and arguments are properly preserved in the trial record to secure meaningful appellate review.
The impact of this decision extends beyond the immediate parties involved. Defense attorneys handling criminal appeals must now navigate heightened procedural requirements, while prosecutors can expect more rigorous enforcement of appellate rules that may benefit the state when defense counsel fails to comply with technical requirements.
The decision reflects the Nebraska Supreme Court's commitment to maintaining orderly appellate procedures and ensuring that the court's resources are efficiently utilized. By enforcing strict compliance with appellate rules, the court aims to prevent delays and maintain the integrity of the appellate process.
Legal practitioners should review their appellate brief preparation procedures to ensure compliance with the revised rules, particularly Nebraska Court Rule of Appellate Procedure Section 2-109(D). The court's emphasis on proper identification and presentation of claims suggests that generic or poorly structured arguments may face immediate procedural challenges.
The *Anthony* decision serves as both a procedural ruling and a cautionary tale for the Nebraska legal community, emphasizing that technical compliance with appellate rules is not merely suggested but mandatory for meaningful appellate review.