Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
41 Nebraska opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hobza v. Seedorff Masonry, Inc.red2 sentences2004“If the language of a statute is clear, the words of such statute are the end of any judicial inquiry regarding its meaning.” Hobza v. Seedorff Masonry, Inc., 259 Neb. 671, 675 , 611 N.W.2d 828, 831 (2000). 2004“If the language of a statute is clear, the words of such statute are the end of any judicial inquiry regarding its meaning.” Hobza v. Seedorff Masonry, Inc., 259 Neb. 671, 675 , 611 N.W.2d 828, 831 (2000). | 1 | 2 |
Stewart v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev.green2 sentences2018See Stewart v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 294 Neb. 1010 , 885 N.W.2d 723 (2016). 2018See Stewart v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 294 Neb. 1010 , 885 N.W.2d 723 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Zavala v. ConAgra Beef Co.green2 sentences2004“The Legislature enacted the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act ... in order to relieve injured workers from the adverse economic effects caused by a work-related injury or occupational disease.” Zavala v. ConAgra Beef Co., 265 Neb. at 197 , 655 N.W.2d at 700 (2003). 2004“The Legislature enacted the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act ... in order to relieve injured workers from the adverse economic effects caused by a work-related injury or occupational disease.” Zavala v. ConAgra Beef Co., 265 Neb. at 197 , 655 N.W.2d at 700 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ameritas Life Ins. Corp. v. Balka
green
2 sentences2000Ameritas Life Ins. v. Balka, 257 Neb. 878 , 601 N.W.2d 508 (1999). 2000Ameritas Life Ins. v. Balka, 257 Neb. 878 , 601 N.W.2d 508 (1999). | 5 | 2000–2000 |
Turco v. Schuning
green
2 sentences2008Turco v. Schuning, 271 Neb. 770 , 716 N.W.2d 415 (2006). 2008Turco v. Schuning, 271 Neb. 770 , 716 N.W.2d 415 (2006). | 4 | 2007–2008 |
First Data Corp. v. STATE, DEPT. OF REV.
green
2 sentences2004First Data Corp. v. State, 263 Neb. 344 , 639 N.W.2d 898 (2002). 2004First Data Corp. v. State, 263 Neb. 344 , 639 N.W.2d 898 (2002). | 4 | 2002–2004 |
Guardianship of Garcia v. Garcia
green
2 sentences2002In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Garcia, 262 Neb. 205 , 631 N.W.2d 464 (2001); Mulinix v. Roberts, 261 Neb. 800 , 626 N.W.2d 220 (2001). 2002In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Garcia, 262 Neb. 205 , 631 N.W.2d 464 (2001); Mulinix v. Roberts, 261 Neb. 800 , 626 N.W.2d 220 (2001). | 3 | 2001–2002 |
County of Lancaster v. County of Custer
green
2 sentences2023Id. 2023COUNTY OF CUSTER Cite as 313 Neb. 622 province of a court to read a meaning into a statute that is not warranted by the language; neither is it within the prov- ince of a court to read anything plain, direct, or unambiguous out of a statute. 30 If the language of a statute is clear, the words of such statute are the end of any judicial inquiry regarding its meaning. 31 (d) Specific Statute Versus General Statute [12] To the extent conflict exists between two statutes, the specific statute controls over the general. 32 During oral argu- ment, the parties took different positions regarding which | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Bossow
green
2 sentences2014State v. Bossow, 274 Neb. 836 , 744 N.W.2d 43 (2008). 2014State v. Bossow, 274 Neb. 836 , 744 N.W.2d 43 (2008). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Rhea
green
2 sentences2008State v. Rhea, 262 Neb. 886 , 636 N.W.2d 364 (2001). 2008State v. Rhea, 262 Neb. 886 , 636 N.W.2d 364 (2001). | 2 | 2003–2008 |
McCray v. Nebraska State Patrol
green
2 sentences2007Turco v. Schuning, 271 Neb. 770 , 716 N.W.2d 415 (2006); McCray v. Nebraska State Patrol, 271 Neb. 1 , 710 N.W.2d 300 (2006). 2007Turco v. Schuning, 271 Neb. 770 , 716 N.W.2d 415 (2006); McCray v. Nebraska State Patrol, 271 Neb. 1 , 710 N.W.2d 300 (2006). | 2 | 2006–2007 |
Mogensen v. Board of Supervisors
red
2 sentences2006The problem with this argument is that "[i]f the language of a statute is clear, the words of such statute are the end of any judicial inquiry regarding its meaning." Morgensen v. Board of Supervisors, 268 Neb. 26 , 30 , 679 N.W.2d 413 , 417 (2004). 2006The problem with this argument is that "[i]f the language of a statute is clear, the words of such statute are the end of any judicial inquiry regarding its meaning." Morgensen v. Board of Supervisors, 268 Neb. 26 , 30 , 679 N.W.2d 413 , 417 (2004). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Gracey v. Zwonechek
green
2 sentences2003Eyl v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 264 Neb. 582 , 650 N.W.2d 744 (2002); Gracey v. Zwonechek, 263 Neb. 796 , 643 N.W.2d 381 (2002); City of Omaha v. Kum & Go, 263 Neb. 724 , 642 N.W.2d 154 (2002). 2003Eyl v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 264 Neb. 582 , 650 N.W.2d 744 (2002); Gracey v. Zwonechek, 263 Neb. 796 , 643 N.W.2d 381 (2002); City of Omaha v. Kum & Go, 263 Neb. 724 , 642 N.W.2d 154 (2002). | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Eyl v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.
green
2 sentences2003Eyl v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 264 Neb. 582 , 650 N.W.2d 744 (2002); Gracey v. Zwonechek, 263 Neb. 796 , 643 N.W.2d 381 (2002); City of Omaha v. Kum & Go, 263 Neb. 724 , 642 N.W.2d 154 (2002). 2003Eyl v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 264 Neb. 582 , 650 N.W.2d 744 (2002); Gracey v. Zwonechek, 263 Neb. 796 , 643 N.W.2d 381 (2002); City of Omaha v. Kum & Go, 263 Neb. 724 , 642 N.W.2d 154 (2002). | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Mulinix v. Roberts
neutral
2 sentences2002In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Garcia, 262 Neb. 205 , 631 N.W.2d 464 (2001); Mulinix v. Roberts, 261 Neb. 800 , 626 N.W.2d 220 (2001). 2002In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Garcia, 262 Neb. 205 , 631 N.W.2d 464 (2001); Mulinix v. Roberts, 261 Neb. 800 , 626 N.W.2d 220 (2001). | 2 | 2001–2002 |
Vopalka v. Abraham
green
2 sentences2001Vopalka v. Abraham, 260 Neb. 737 , 619 N.W.2d 594 (2000). 2001Vopalka v. Abraham, 260 Neb. 737 , 619 N.W.2d 594 (2000). | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Schrader v. Farmers Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2000Id. 2000Co., ante p. 87, 608 N.W.2d 194 (2000); Lyman-Richey Corp. v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., supra. If the language of a statute is clear, the words of such statute are the end of any judicial inquiry regarding its meaning. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Sharkey v. Board of Regents
green
2 sentences2000American Employers Group v. Department of Labor, ante p. 405, 617 N.W.2d 808 (2000); Sharkey v. Board of Regents, ante p. 166, 615 N.W.2d 889 (2000). 2000Sharkey v. Board of Regents, ante p. 166, 615 N.W.2d 889 (2000). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Mastne
neutral
1 sentence2009Id. statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Warriner
neutral
2 sentences2006State v. Warriner, 267 Neb. 424 , 675 N.W.2d 112 (2004); American Employers Group v. Department of Labor , *10 supra. Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. 2006State v. Warriner, 267 Neb. 424 , 675 N.W.2d 112 (2004); American Employers Group v. Department of Labor , *10 supra. Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Salazar v. Scotts Bluff County
green
2 sentences2004Salazar v. Scotts Bluff Cty., 266 Neb. 444 , 665 N.W.2d 659 (2003). 2004Salazar v. Scotts Bluff Cty., 266 Neb. 444 , 665 N.W.2d 659 (2003). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2004State v. Jones, 258 Neb. 695 , 605 N.W.2d 434 (2000). 2004State v. Jones, 258 Neb. 695 , 605 N.W.2d 434 (2000). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
City of Omaha v. Kum & Go, L.L.C.
green
2 sentences2003Eyl v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 264 Neb. 582 , 650 N.W.2d 744 (2002); Gracey v. Zwonechek, 263 Neb. 796 , 643 N.W.2d 381 (2002); City of Omaha v. Kum & Go, 263 Neb. 724 , 642 N.W.2d 154 (2002). 2003Eyl v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 264 Neb. 582 , 650 N.W.2d 744 (2002); Gracey v. Zwonechek, 263 Neb. 796 , 643 N.W.2d 381 (2002); City of Omaha v. Kum & Go, 263 Neb. 724 , 642 N.W.2d 154 (2002). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
GUENZEL HANDLOS v. County of Lancaster
green
2 sentences2003Guenzel-Handlos v. County of Lancaster, 265 Neb. 125 , 655 N.W.2d 384 (2003); Eyl v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 264 Neb. 582 , 650 N.W.2d 744 (2002). 2003Guenzel-Handlos v. County of Lancaster, 265 Neb. 125 , 655 N.W.2d 384 (2003); Eyl v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 264 Neb. 582 , 650 N.W.2d 744 (2002). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Big John's Billiards, Inc. v. Balka
green
2 sentences2001Vopalka v. Abraham, 260 Neb. 737 , 619 N.W.2d 594 (2000); Big John’s Billiards v. Balka, 260 Neb. 702 , 619 N.W.2d 444 (2000). 2001Vopalka v. Abraham, 260 Neb. 737 , 619 N.W.2d 594 (2000); Big John’s Billiards v. Balka, 260 Neb. 702 , 619 N.W.2d 444 (2000). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
American Employers Group, Inc. v. Department of Labor
green
1 sentence2000American Employers Group v. Department of Labor, ante p. 405, 617 N.W.2d 808 (2000); Sharkey v. Board of Regents, ante p. 166, 615 N.W.2d 889 (2000). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.