to displace duties that the Legislature statutorily requires to be performed by the clerk of the court by reassigning the duties to its bailiff. Compare Building Systems, Inc. v. Medical Center, Ltd., 228 Neb. 168, 421 N.W.2d 773 (1988). In holding that notice of judgment sent by the court’s bailiff does not comply with the requirements of § 25-1301.01, we are not exalting form over substance. This case aptly illustrates the problems that can arise when notice is not sent by the clerk. If the clerk had made a court entry indicating that the notice had been mailed, a presumption of regularity would have attached to his or her actions, and the Nyes’ claim that they did not receive notice would be without merit under Roemer. See, e.g., State v. Hess, 261 Neb. 368, 622 N.W.2d 891 (2001) (<HOLDING>). But when both the court and clerk admit that
holding that evidence that va sent appellant an election card when combined with presumption of regularity accorded to the official acts of public officers including mailings was enough to discharge any  7722 duty assuming there was one holding that a clerks scheduling duties as part of a courts inherent power to control its docket is subject to absolute immunity holding that private party can assert official immunity if it contracted with a public official to perform governmental duties holding that presumption of regularity is afforded to clerks of court performing their official duties recognizing a presumption of regularity that undergirds the official acts of public officers causing courts to presume that they have properly discharged their official duties