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.
5 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Putnam v. Scherbringgreen2 sentences2017Therefore, the correct analytical framework did not require the district court to consider the Norquay factors. 14 See § 6-101(A). 15 See § 6-101(B)(5). 16 § 6-101(C). 17 See In re Interest of Zachary D. & Alexander D., 289 Neb. 763 , 857 N.W.2d 323 (2015). - 878 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports PUTNAM v. SCHERBRING Cite as 297 Neb. 868 2. 2017Therefore, the correct analytical framework did not require the district court to consider the Norquay factors. 14 See § 6-101(A). 15 See § 6-101(B)(5). 16 § 6-101(C). 17 See In re Interest of Zachary D. & Alexander D., 289 Neb. 763 , 857 N.W.2d 323 (2015). - 878 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports PUTNAM v. SCHERBRING Cite as 297 Neb. 868 2. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ricker v. Nebraska Methodist Health Sys.
neutral
2 sentences2025Cite as 319 Neb. 628 to identify her expert witness earlier in the case.” 11 Regarding the second factor, it concluded the expert’s affidavit was essen- tial to Ricker’s case because without an expert, she “could not prove that a genuine issue of material fact existed.” 12 And regarding the remaining factors, it acknowledged that the late disclosure came as a surprise to the defendants and that a continuance would be necessary to permit the defense to “pre- pare to meet” the new expert’s testimony. 13 Nevertheless, it ultimately concluded that the Norquay factors did not support excluding the 2025Cite as 319 Neb. 628 to identify her expert witness earlier in the case.” 11 Regarding the second factor, it concluded the expert’s affidavit was essen- tial to Ricker’s case because without an expert, she “could not prove that a genuine issue of material fact existed.” 12 And regarding the remaining factors, it acknowledged that the late disclosure came as a surprise to the defendants and that a continuance would be necessary to permit the defense to “pre- pare to meet” the new expert’s testimony. 13 Nevertheless, it ultimately concluded that the Norquay factors did not support excluding the | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Beran v. Nebraska Ortho. & Sports Medicine
green
2 sentences2020The Supreme Court emphasized that a court abuses its discretion when its decision is based upon reasons that are untenable - 695 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 28 Nebraska Appellate Reports BERAN v. NEBRASKA ORTHO. & SPORTS MEDICINE Cite as 28 Neb. 2020The Supreme Court emphasized that a court abuses its discretion when its decision is based upon reasons that are untenable - 695 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 28 Nebraska Appellate Reports BERAN v. NEBRASKA ORTHO. & SPORTS MEDICINE Cite as 28 Neb. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In-Line Suspension, Inc. v. Weinberg & Weinberg, P.C.
green
2 sentences2020App. 908 , 687 N.W.2d 418 (2004), which applies the Norquay factors. 2020App. 908 , 687 N.W.2d 418 (2004), which applies the Norquay factors. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Paulk v. Central Laboratory Associates, P.C.
green
2 sentences2018Assocs., 262 Neb. 838 , 636 N.W.2d 170 (2001). - 796 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports FACILITIES COST MGMT. 2018Assocs., 262 Neb. 838 , 636 N.W.2d 170 (2001). - 796 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports FACILITIES COST MGMT. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In re Interest of Zachary D. & Alexander D.
green
2 sentences2017Therefore, the correct analytical framework did not require the district court to consider the Norquay factors. 14 See § 6-101(A). 15 See § 6-101(B)(5). 16 § 6-101(C). 17 See In re Interest of Zachary D. & Alexander D., 289 Neb. 763 , 857 N.W.2d 323 (2015). - 878 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports PUTNAM v. SCHERBRING Cite as 297 Neb. 868 2. 2017Therefore, the correct analytical framework did not require the district court to consider the Norquay factors. 14 See § 6-101(A). 15 See § 6-101(B)(5). 16 § 6-101(C). 17 See In re Interest of Zachary D. & Alexander D., 289 Neb. 763 , 857 N.W.2d 323 (2015). - 878 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports PUTNAM v. SCHERBRING Cite as 297 Neb. 868 2. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.