Dylan H. v. Brooke C., 9 N.W.3d 439

Dylan H. filed a complaint to establish paternity for minor P.C. against Brooke C., the child's biological mother.
Brooke's partner, Brandon B., had previously signed a notarized acknowledgment of paternity and intervened in the case, claiming he was P.C.'s legal father.
Dylan filed a third-party complaint to disestablish Brandon's paternity, alleging fraud and mistake of fact.
The district court bifurcated the proceedings, first trying only the disestablishment of Brandon's paternity, found in Dylan's favor (disestablishing Brandon's paternity based on fraud and mistake of fact), and denied Brooke and Brandon's motion for a new trial.
Brooke and Brandon appealed before the claims for establishment of Dylan's paternity, custody, and support were resolved as part of the same proceeding.
The Nebraska Supreme Court addressed whether it had jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1315(1), since not all claims and parties had been resolved and no final certification had been entered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appellate jurisdiction under § 25-1315(1) for partial orders	Orders disestablishing Brandon's paternity were properly appealable as they resolved a significant issue.	Orders were final and appealable, or should be treated as such.	No appellate jurisdiction; orders were not final and lacked § 25-1315 certification.
Effect of bifurcation on appealability of orders in multi-claim case	N/A	Disestablishment order should be final even though establishment of paternity not yet resolved.	Bifurcation did not render order final; all claims must be resolved or certified.
Requirement of certification for immediate appeal in multi-party, multi-claim actions	N/A	Orders should be appealable as they decide an important right.	Certification explicitly required under § 25-1315(1); not provided here.
Consequence of appealing nonfinal orders	Should be able to proceed with the appeal.	Appeal should move forward despite unresolved claims.	Appeal dismissed due to lack of final, appealable order.

Johnson v. Vosberg, 316 Neb. 658 (explaining jurisdictional requirements for appeals under Nebraska law)
Mann v. Mann, 312 Neb. 275 (distinguishing 'claim for relief' from an 'issue' and outlining § 25-1315 requirements)
State on behalf of Marcelo K. & Rycki K. v. Ricky K., 300 Neb. 179 (applying § 25-1315 to multi-claim and multi-party actions)
Boyd v. Cook, 298 Neb. 819 (explaining necessity of final order for appellate jurisdiction)
Rafert v. Meyer, 298 Neb. 461 (balancing policy against piecemeal appeals in multi-claim litigation)