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 1924–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Howell v. Rossgreen1 sentence1924See, also, Howell v. Ross, 69 Neb. 1 ; In re Estate of Nelson, 81 Neb. 363 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wayne L. Ryan Revocable Trust v. Ryan
green
2 sentences2026Id. 2023Id. | 2 | 2023–2026 |
Taylor v. Coots
neutral
2 sentences1939The following excerpts disclose the gist of our second opinion of that case, viz.: “ ‘The sufficiency of the petition,’ in a court of record, ‘is not a test of jurisdiction, as the court may commit an error in holding it sufficient ;• but this, if the court had jurisdiction, will not render the judgment subject to collateral attack.’ Taylor v. Coots, 32 Neb. 30 . 1924“The sufficiency of the petition is not a test of jurisdiction, as the court may commit an error in holding it sufficient; but this, if the court had jurisdiction, will not render the judgment subject to collateral attack.” Taylor v. Coots, 32 Neb. 30 . | 2 | 1924–1939 |
Brandeen v. Lau
neutral
2 sentences1954It is said in Brandeen v. Lau, 113 Neb. 34 , 201 N. W. 665 : “ ‘The sufficiency of the petition is not a test of jurisdiction, as the court may commit an error in holding it sufficient; * * ” A prerequisite to the vacation of a judgment by resort to the statutory method relied upon by appellees is that “it is adjudged that there is a valid defense to the action in which the judgment is rendered.” § 25-2005, R. 1954It is said in Brandeen v. Lau, 113 Neb. 34 , 201 N. W. 665 : “ ‘The sufficiency of the petition is not a test of jurisdiction, as the court may commit an error in holding it sufficient; * * ” A prerequisite to the vacation of a judgment by resort to the statutory method relied upon by appellees is that “it is adjudged that there is a valid defense to the action in which the judgment is rendered.” § 25-2005, R. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Nelson v. Nelson
green
1 sentence1924See, also, Howell v. Ross, 69 Neb. 1 ; In re Estate of Nelson, 81 Neb. 363 . | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.