The district court based this finding on evidence that Portsche was “the only person in his car, was found slumped over in the driver’s seat, with the engine running and the left blinker on.” The district court also cited evidence that Portsche told the police that he was “ ‘on his way home.’ ” We conclude that the district court, as the finder of fact, did not err in finding that on January 3, 1998, Portsche was “operating a [motor] vehicle” while his license was revoked, as the quoted phrase is used under § 60-6,196(6). We have previously held that in a driving under suspension case, circumstantial evidence may serve to establish the operation of a motor vehicle. State v. Hanger, 241 Neb. 812, 491 N.W.2d 55 (1992). See, similarly, State v. Eckert, 186 Neb. 134, 181 N.W.2d 264 (1970) (<HOLDING>). The evidence in the instant case that
holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence holding that circumstantial evidence may support temporal link between defendants intoxication and his driving holding that circumstantial evidence alone may establish discriminatory intent holding in driving under influence case that circumstantial evidence may serve to establish operation of vehicle