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 1 courts 1950–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. McCallum
neutral
2 sentences2024It argues that the court’s analysis starts not with the title chosen by the Legislature, but with the substance of the bill at issue, and that based on its review of the substance of the bill at issue, the court is tasked with identifying the bill’s “main purpose.” 34 Having identified that “main purpose,” Planned Parenthood argues the court must go on to analyze whether its various provisions are “‘naturally connected with and incidental to 33 See, State v. Barton, supra note 21 ; The People v. McCallum, 1 Neb. 182 (1871). 34 Brief for appellant at 21. - 232 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S 2024It argues that the court’s analysis starts not with the title chosen by the Legislature, but with the substance of the bill at issue, and that based on its review of the substance of the bill at issue, the court is tasked with identifying the bill’s “main purpose.” 34 Having identified that “main purpose,” Planned Parenthood argues the court must go on to analyze whether its various provisions are “‘naturally connected with and incidental to 33 See, State v. Barton, supra note 21 ; The People v. McCallum, 1 Neb. 182 (1871). 34 Brief for appellant at 21. - 232 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States
green
1 sentence2021A late-19th-century U.S. Supreme Court case, Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 , 12 - 567 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports RODRIGUEZ v. LASTING HOPE RECOVERY CTR. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Garcia
green
2 sentences1991See, Sanders, supra; State v. Garcia, 235 Neb. 53 , 453 N.W.2d 469 (1990). 1991See, Sanders, supra; State v. Garcia, 235 Neb. 53 , 453 N.W.2d 469 (1990). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Whalen v. Milholland
green
2 sentences1950A. 184, speaking of gifts, it was said: “Around this mode the requirement of actual delivery is the only substantial protection, and the courts should not weaken it by permitting the substitution of convenient and easily-proven devices.” In Whalen v. Milholland, 89 Md. 199 , 43 A. 45 , 44 L. 1950A. 184, speaking of gifts, it was said: “Around this mode the requirement of actual delivery is the only substantial protection, and the courts should not weaken it by permitting the substitution of convenient and easily-proven devices.” In Whalen v. Milholland, 89 Md. 199 , 43 A. 45 , 44 L. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
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.