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.
6 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Edward Trzaskagreen1 sentence2007His credibility should in fairness be subject to impeachment ... as though he had in fact testified.’” U.S. v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019, 1024 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting Fed. | 1 | 1 |
Jewell v. Jackson & Whitsitt Cotton Co.green1 sentence1986In Jewell v. Jackson & Whitsitt Cotton Co., 331 So. 2d 623, 625 (Ala. 1976), the court held a judgment “must be conclusive and certain in itself. [Citations omitted.] All matters should be decided; damages should be assessed with specificity leaving the parties with nothing to determine on their own.” The rationale behind a rule requiring a judgment to be definite and certain is that the rights and liabilities of the parties to the action must be able to be determined, and the unsuccessful party may readily understand and be capable of *91 performing that which he is ordered to. do, from the j | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. G & G Sheet Metal Co.
neutral
2 sentences2026Cite as 34 Neb. App. 372 unwarranted, as the concept of a corporate injury that is distinct from any injury to the shareholders approaches the fictional in the case of a firm with only a handful of shareholders. 2026Cite as 34 Neb. App. 372 unwarranted, as the concept of a corporate injury that is distinct from any injury to the shareholders approaches the fictional in the case of a firm with only a handful of shareholders. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Hodson v. Taylor
green
1 sentence2015Nebraska Advance Sheets HODSON v. TAYLOR 367 Cite as 290 Neb. 348 slight since reasonable people will avoid open and obvi- ous risks.34 [24] Under the open and obvious doctrine, a possessor of land is not liable to his or her invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the pos- sessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.35 [25,26] A condition is considered obvious when the risk is apparent to and of the type that would be recognized by a reasonable person in the position of the | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Young v. State of Oklahoma
green
1 sentence1985The rationale behind such a rule is perhaps best set out in Young v. State of Oklahoma, 428 F. Supp. 288 (W.D. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
The People v. Williams
green
1 sentence1982The rationale behind such a rule has been noted to be that “ ‘only counsel is competent to make such a decision, that counsel must be the manager of the law-suit, that if such decisions [strategic and tactical decisions] are to be made by the defendant, he is likely to do himself more harm than good, and that a contrary rule would seriously impair the constitutional guaranty of the right to counsel.’ ” The People v. Williams, supra at 204, 222 N.E.2d at 326 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.