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 1988–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bender v. Norfolk Iron & Metal Co.
green
2 sentences1988Hernandez v. Farmland Foods, 227 Neb. 629 , 418 N.W.2d 765 (1988); Bender v. Norfolk Iron & Metal Co., 224 Neb. 706 , 400 N.W.2d 859 (1987). 1988Hernandez v. Farmland Foods, 227 Neb. 629 , 418 N.W.2d 765 (1988); Bender v. Norfolk Iron & Metal Co., 224 Neb. 706 , 400 N.W.2d 859 (1987). | 2 | 1988–1988 |
Hernandez v. Farmland Foods, Inc.
green
2 sentences1988Hernandez v. Farmland Foods, 227 Neb. 629 , 418 N.W.2d 765 (1988); Bender v. Norfolk Iron & Metal Co., 224 Neb. 706 , 400 N.W.2d 859 (1987). 1988Hernandez v. Farmland Foods, 227 Neb. 629 , 418 N.W.2d 765 (1988); Bender v. Norfolk Iron & Metal Co., 224 Neb. 706 , 400 N.W.2d 859 (1987). | 2 | 1988–1988 |
Spiker v. John Day Co.
green
2 sentences1988The State assigns as error that the Workers’ Compensation Court erred in “providing that housekeeping services and personal care services are compensable pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. §48-120 (Reissue) and Spiker v. John Day Co., 201 Neb. 503 , 270 N.W.2d 300 (1978).” We first note that § 48-120 provides that “the employer shall be liable for all reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital services” and that the Workers’ Compensation Court “shall have the authority to determine the necessity, character, and sufficiency of any medical services.” In our review of a workers’ compensation case, the fin 1988The State assigns as error that the Workers’ Compensation Court erred in “providing that housekeeping services and personal care services are compensable pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. §48-120 (Reissue) and Spiker v. John Day Co., 201 Neb. 503 , 270 N.W.2d 300 (1978).” We first note that § 48-120 provides that “the employer shall be liable for all reasonable medical, surgical, and hospital services” and that the Workers’ Compensation Court “shall have the authority to determine the necessity, character, and sufficiency of any medical services.” In our review of a workers’ compensation case, the fin | 2 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Fredrickson
green
1 sentence2020The district court, after a hearing where the parties stipulated that the evidence of indigency would have been the same as was provided to the trial court at a previous hearing, found Fredrickson indigent and ordered the county responsible for payment of attorney fees, filing fee, bill of exceptions, and other costs of the action. 2 State v. Fredrickson, 305 Neb. 165 , 939 N.W.2d 385 (2020). - 86 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FREDRICKSON Cite as 306 Neb. 81 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The State assigns as error the district court’s approval of Fredrickson’s ap | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Fredrickson
green
2 sentences2020The district court, after a hearing where the parties stipulated that the evidence of indigency would have been the same as was provided to the trial court at a previous hearing, found Fredrickson indigent and ordered the county responsible for payment of attorney fees, filing fee, bill of exceptions, and other costs of the action. 2 State v. Fredrickson, 305 Neb. 165 , 939 N.W.2d 385 (2020). - 86 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FREDRICKSON Cite as 306 Neb. 81 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The State assigns as error the district court’s approval of Fredrickson’s ap 2020The district court, after a hearing where the parties stipulated that the evidence of indigency would have been the same as was provided to the trial court at a previous hearing, found Fredrickson indigent and ordered the county responsible for payment of attorney fees, filing fee, bill of exceptions, and other costs of the action. 2 State v. Fredrickson, 305 Neb. 165 , 939 N.W.2d 385 (2020). - 86 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FREDRICKSON Cite as 306 Neb. 81 ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The State assigns as error the district court’s approval of Fredrickson’s ap | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Nebrasks (In Re Interest Audrey T.)
green
1 sentence2019In re Interest of Audrey T., 26 Neb. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Franco
red
1 sentence1999ANALYSIS This case is controlled by our decision in State v. Franco, ante p. 15, 594 N.W.2d 633 (1999). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. One 1987 Toyota Pickup
green
2 sentences1999ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The State assigns as error that the district court erred (1) in determining that State v. One 1987 Toyota Pickup, 233 Neb. 670 , 447 N.W.2d 243 (1989), created or extended double jeopardy protection from multiple prosecution or multiple punishment on forfeiture proceedings; (2) in determining that a separate forfeiture action and a criminal proceeding constitute prosecution for the same offense, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause; and (3) in determining that forfeiture proceedings are so punitive as to constitute multiple punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause 1999ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR The State assigns as error that the district court erred (1) in determining that State v. One 1987 Toyota Pickup, 233 Neb. 670 , 447 N.W.2d 243 (1989), created or extended double jeopardy protection from multiple prosecution or multiple punishment on forfeiture proceedings; (2) in determining that a separate forfeiture action and a criminal proceeding constitute prosecution for the same offense, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause; and (3) in determining that forfeiture proceedings are so punitive as to constitute multiple punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.