omitted.) Haen v. Haen, 210 Neb. 380, 382, 314 N.W.2d 276, 277 (1982). A judgment marred by irregularity is one rendered contrary to the course of law and practice of the court. Haen, supra. An example of irregularity under these circumstances would be dismissal for want of prosecution entered without any opportunity to show cause, not failure of counsel to take notice of opportunity given in accordance with court rules. The record reveals no deviation by the clerk from the standard practice of the district court of sending notice to counsel of record and publishing notice in The Daily Reporter. As with Roemer’s accusation of “mistake,” the only irregularity that occurred in this case has nothing to do with § 25-2001(3). See Bowen v. Rohnacher, 15 Md. App. 280, 290 A.2d 560 (1972) (<HOLDING>). In rejecting Roemer’s redefinitions of the
holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city holding that nonreceipt of notice of hearing is not irregularity when notice is sent in precise accord with requirements of court rules holding that notice of administrative forfeiture sent to prisoner did not require actual notice to the property owner only notice reasonably calculated to apprise a party of the pendency of the action holding that particularized notice requires notice of the precise sanctioning tool to be employed holding affidavit stating we searched our files and were unable to locate any notice of customs service action on this protest and we believe that no notification was sent to us was sufficient to raise the presumption of nonreceipt of notice