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.
34 Nebraska opinions name it 3 courts 1979–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Philippsgreen2 sentences1999We have observed that the separation of powers clause “prohibits one department of government from encroaching on the duties and prerogatives of the others or from improperly delegating its own duties and prerogatives, except as the Constitution itself otherwise directs or permits.” State v. Philipps, 246 Neb. 610, 614 , 521 N.W.2d 913, 916 (1994). 1999We have observed that the separation of powers clause “prohibits one department of government from encroaching on the duties and prerogatives of the others or from improperly delegating its own duties and prerogatives, except as the Constitution itself otherwise directs or permits.” State v. Philipps, 246 Neb. 610, 614 , 521 N.W.2d 913, 916 (1994). | 2 | 5 |
League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Education Network, Inc. v. Scott Walkergreen2 sentences2024Accord, League of Women Voters of Wis. v. Walker, 357 Wis. 2d 360, 374 , 851 N.W.2d 302, 309 (2014) (recognizing “‘[t]he persons who may exercise the right of suffrage . . . are fixed by the constitution’” but “‘[t]hese provisions are not and were never intended to be self-executing or exclusive of regulation in other respects. . . . [T]he power to prescribe the manner of conducting elections is clearly within the province of the legislature’”). - 827 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 317 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL. 2024Accord, League of Women Voters of Wis. v. Walker, 357 Wis. 2d 360, 374 , 851 N.W.2d 302, 309 (2014) (recognizing “‘[t]he persons who may exercise the right of suffrage . . . are fixed by the constitution’” but “‘[t]hese provisions are not and were never intended to be self-executing or exclusive of regulation in other respects. . . . [T]he power to prescribe the manner of conducting elections is clearly within the province of the legislature’”). - 827 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 317 Nebraska Reports STATE EX REL. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Custergreen2 sentences2018We addressed these arguments in Custer, wherein we reasoned that "a court's proper role is to interpret statutes and clarify their meaning" and that the premeditation instruction given in that case "interprets and clarifies the statutory definition; it does not change or contradict the statutory definition." 292 Neb. at 105 , 871 N.W.2d at 257 . 2018We addressed these arguments in Custer, wherein we rea- soned that “a court’s proper role is to interpret statutes and clarify their meaning” and that the premeditation instruction given in that case “interprets and clarifies the statutory defini- tion; it does not change or contradict the statutory definition.” 292 Neb. at 105 , 871 N.W.2d at 257. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2005Accord State v. Moore, 210 Neb. 457 , 316 N.W.2d 33 (1982). *37 Separation of Powers and Formal Pretrial Diversion Programs Next, we turn to the heart of the matter: whether the pretrial diversion statutes violate the separation of powers clause. 2005Accord State v. Moore, 210 Neb. 457 , 316 N.W.2d 33 (1982). *37 Separation of Powers and Formal Pretrial Diversion Programs Next, we turn to the heart of the matter: whether the pretrial diversion statutes violate the separation of powers clause. | 1 | 2 |
Winkle v. City of Tucsongreen2 sentences2006Voter initiatives, part and parcel of the legislative process, receive the same judicial deference as proposals before the state legislature . . . .” (Citations omitted.) Winkle v. City of Tucson, 190 Ariz. 413, 415 , 949 P.2d 502, 504 (1997). 2006Voter initiatives, part and parcel of the legislative process, receive the same judicial deference as proposals before the state legislature . . . .” (Citations omitted.) Winkle v. City of Tucson, 190 Ariz. 413, 415 , 949 P.2d 502, 504 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Searle v. Yensengreen2 sentences2005Compare State v. Ure, 91 Neb. 31, 37-38 , 135 N.W. 224, 226-27 (1912) (stating separation of powers clause “does not attempt to limit the [Legislature as to its power to prescribe the manner in which municipalities or local subdivisions of the state may administer their local affairs”), with Searle v. Yensen, 118 Neb. 835 , 226 N.W. 464 (1929) (stating that Legislature may delegate part of its legislative function to subdivision but only to extent that recipient is member of same branch of government), and State v. Neble, 82 Neb. 267 , 117 N.W. 723 (1908) (suggesting that separation of powers 2005Compare State v. Ure, 91 Neb. 31, 37-38 , 135 N.W. 224, 226-27 (1912) (stating separation of powers clause “does not attempt to limit the [Legislature as to its power to prescribe the manner in which municipalities or local subdivisions of the state may administer their local affairs”), with Searle v. Yensen, 118 Neb. 835 , 226 N.W. 464 (1929) (stating that Legislature may delegate part of its legislative function to subdivision but only to extent that recipient is member of same branch of government), and State v. Neble, 82 Neb. 267 , 117 N.W. 723 (1908) (suggesting that separation of powers | 1 | 1 |
Clayton v. Laceygreen2 sentences2005See Clayton v. Lacey, 256 Neb. 282, 589 N.W.2d 529 (1999) (concluding that person accused of burglary could not bring petition in error challenging county attorney’s decision to exclude him from preestablished diversion program because county attorney’s decision was exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than judicial act). *40 CONCLUSION We conclude that the power to design a pretrial diversion program is a legislative function and that therefore, in enacting §§ 29-3601 through 29-3609, the Legislature did not run afoul of the separation of powers clause. 2005See Clayton v. Lacey, 256 Neb. 282, 589 N.W.2d 529 (1999) (concluding that person accused of burglary could not bring petition in error challenging county attorney’s decision to exclude him from preestablished diversion program because county attorney’s decision was exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than judicial act). *40 CONCLUSION We conclude that the power to design a pretrial diversion program is a legislative function and that therefore, in enacting §§ 29-3601 through 29-3609, the Legislature did not run afoul of the separation of powers clause. | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Thompson v. Neblegreen2 sentences2005Compare State v. Ure, 91 Neb. 31, 37-38 , 135 N.W. 224, 226-27 (1912) (stating separation of powers clause “does not attempt to limit the [Legislature as to its power to prescribe the manner in which municipalities or local subdivisions of the state may administer their local affairs”), with Searle v. Yensen, 118 Neb. 835 , 226 N.W. 464 (1929) (stating that Legislature may delegate part of its legislative function to subdivision but only to extent that recipient is member of same branch of government), and State v. Neble, 82 Neb. 267 , 117 N.W. 723 (1908) (suggesting that separation of powers 2005Compare State v. Ure, 91 Neb. 31, 37-38 , 135 N.W. 224, 226-27 (1912) (stating separation of powers clause “does not attempt to limit the [Legislature as to its power to prescribe the manner in which municipalities or local subdivisions of the state may administer their local affairs”), with Searle v. Yensen, 118 Neb. 835 , 226 N.W. 464 (1929) (stating that Legislature may delegate part of its legislative function to subdivision but only to extent that recipient is member of same branch of government), and State v. Neble, 82 Neb. 267 , 117 N.W. 723 (1908) (suggesting that separation of powers | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Baughn v. Uregreen2 sentences2005Compare State v. Ure, 91 Neb. 31, 37-38 , 135 N.W. 224, 226-27 (1912) (stating separation of powers clause “does not attempt to limit the [Legislature as to its power to prescribe the manner in which municipalities or local subdivisions of the state may administer their local affairs”), with Searle v. Yensen, 118 Neb. 835 , 226 N.W. 464 (1929) (stating that Legislature may delegate part of its legislative function to subdivision but only to extent that recipient is member of same branch of government), and State v. Neble, 82 Neb. 267 , 117 N.W. 723 (1908) (suggesting that separation of powers 2005Compare State v. Ure, 91 Neb. 31, 37-38 , 135 N.W. 224, 226-27 (1912) (stating separation of powers clause “does not attempt to limit the [Legislature as to its power to prescribe the manner in which municipalities or local subdivisions of the state may administer their local affairs”), with Searle v. Yensen, 118 Neb. 835 , 226 N.W. 464 (1929) (stating that Legislature may delegate part of its legislative function to subdivision but only to extent that recipient is member of same branch of government), and State v. Neble, 82 Neb. 267 , 117 N.W. 723 (1908) (suggesting that separation of powers | 1 | 1 |
Laverty v. Cochrangreen1 sentence2002See also Laverty, 132 Neb. at 121 ("[T]he Constitution is still recognized as the supreme law of the state and as a limitation of power of all departments and all officials."); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Rehbein v. Clarkegreen2 sentences2001ANALYSIS In Rehbein v. Clarke, 257 Neb. 406, 409-10 , 598 N.W.2d 39, 43 (1999), we stated: Habeas corpus is a special civil proceeding providing a summary remedy to persons illegally detained. ... 2001ANALYSIS In Rehbein v. Clarke, 257 Neb. 406, 409-10 , 598 N.W.2d 39, 43 (1999), we stated: Habeas corpus is a special civil proceeding providing a summary remedy to persons illegally detained. ... | 1 | 1 |
Otey v. Stategreen2 sentences1999See Otey v. State, 240 Neb. 813 , 485 N.W.2d 153 (1992). 1999See Otey v. State, 240 Neb. 813 , 485 N.W.2d 153 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Michigan Supervisors Union OPEIU Local 512 v. Department of Civil Servicegreen2 sentences1998See, e.g., Local 512 v Civil Service Dep’t, 209 Mich. App. 573 , 531 N.W.2d 790 (1995); Ron Smith Trucking, Inc. v. Jackson, 196 Ill. 1998See, e.g., Local 512 v Civil Service Dep’t, 209 Mich. App. 573 , 531 N.W.2d 790 (1995); Ron Smith Trucking, Inc. v. Jackson, 196 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. State Ex Rel. Board of Nursinggreen2 sentences1998Board of Nursing, 196 Neb. 681, 687-88 , 244 N.W.2d 683, 688 (1976), we stated that “[t]he licensing and regulation of the health profession and other matters dealing with health is a legislative function which [the legislative] branch of government ordinarily carries out through administrative agencies created by it.” Relying on the conclusion that “[t]he licensing and regulation of the health profession” is a legislative function, we reasoned that a statute which purports to give a court the power to review an exercise of legislative power de novo, in the sense that the court may substitute 1998Board of Nursing, 196 Neb. 681, 687-88 , 244 N.W.2d 683, 688 (1976), we stated that “[t]he licensing and regulation of the health profession and other matters dealing with health is a legislative function which [the legislative] branch of government ordinarily carries out through administrative agencies created by it.” Relying on the conclusion that “[t]he licensing and regulation of the health profession” is a legislative function, we reasoned that a statute which purports to give a court the power to review an exercise of legislative power de novo, in the sense that the court may substitute | 1 | 1 |
| Boswell v. Iowa Board of Veterinary Medicinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Evansgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Metropolitan Utilities District v. City of Omahagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wayne County Prosecutor v. Recorder's Court Judgegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sittig
green
2 sentences1985In State v. Sittig , 75 Wis.2d 497 , 249 N.W.2d 770 (1977), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that a mandatory sentence statute requiring a jail sentence for a person driving while his drivers license was under suspension did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers or, in other words, was not an invasion of the authority of the judiciary. 1985In State v. Sittig , 75 Wis.2d 497 , 249 N.W.2d 770 (1977), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that a mandatory sentence statute requiring a jail sentence for a person driving while his drivers license was under suspension did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers or, in other words, was not an invasion of the authority of the judiciary. | 2 | 1985–1985 |
Green v. Cox Cable of Omaha, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2026Gmblg. v. Neb. Horsemen’s Assn., supra note 13 . 61 See Green v. Cox Cable of Omaha, Inc., 212 Neb. 915 , 327 N.W.2d 603 (1982). 62 See Ritchhart v. Daub, supra note 46 . - 323 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports KUEHN v. PILLEN live” 63 because they involve both the separation of powers clause set forth within the Nebraska Constitution and “the carefully calibrated balance between federal and state authority in the U.S. Constitution.” 64 We do not find the exception to be applicable in this case. 2026Gmblg. v. Neb. Horsemen’s Assn., supra note 13 . 61 See Green v. Cox Cable of Omaha, Inc., 212 Neb. 915 , 327 N.W.2d 603 (1982). 62 See Ritchhart v. Daub, supra note 46 . - 323 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports KUEHN v. PILLEN live” 63 because they involve both the separation of powers clause set forth within the Nebraska Constitution and “the carefully calibrated balance between federal and state authority in the U.S. Constitution.” 64 We do not find the exception to be applicable in this case. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
J.S. v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs.
green
1 sentence2020Cite as 306 Neb. 20 review the wisdom of legislative acts; that restraint reflects the reluctance of the judiciary to set policy in areas constitutionally reserved to the Legislature’s plenary power. 90 DHHS did not violate the separation of powers clause in denying J.S. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Bainbridge
green
2 sentences2017We concluded that the 15-year revoca- tion under Nebraska’s driving under the influence statute was part of the overall punishment of the defendant as opposed to a remedial condition.17 We further reasoned, in significant part, that the driving under the influence statutes required the revo- cation period to be a part of the court’s judgment of convic- tion.18 Relying on our previous decision in State v. Philipps,19 we held that the precursor to § 60-6,209 invaded the Board of 16 State v. Bainbridge, 249 Neb. 260 , 543 N.W.2d 154 (1996). 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 State v. Philipps, 246 Neb. 610 , 521 N 2017We concluded that the 15-year revoca- tion under Nebraska’s driving under the influence statute was part of the overall punishment of the defendant as opposed to a remedial condition.17 We further reasoned, in significant part, that the driving under the influence statutes required the revo- cation period to be a part of the court’s judgment of convic- tion.18 Relying on our previous decision in State v. Philipps,19 we held that the precursor to § 60-6,209 invaded the Board of 16 State v. Bainbridge, 249 Neb. 260 , 543 N.W.2d 154 (1996). 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 State v. Philipps, 246 Neb. 610 , 521 N | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In re the Enforcement of a Subpoena
green
2 sentences2017Neither do we accept any clear demar- cation in a separation of powers analysis between “chambers 39 United States v. Nixon, supra note 31. 40 In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 463 Mass. 162 , 972 N.E.2d 1022 (2012). 41 Id. at 174 , 972 N.E.2d at 1033 . - 604 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports STATE EX REL. 2017Neither do we accept any clear demar- cation in a separation of powers analysis between “chambers 39 United States v. Nixon, supra note 31. 40 In re Enforcement of Subpoena, 463 Mass. 162 , 972 N.E.2d 1022 (2012). 41 Id. at 174 , 972 N.E.2d at 1033 . - 604 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports STATE EX REL. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State ex rel. Veskrna v. Steel
green
1 sentence2017VESKRNA v. STEEL Cite as 296 Neb. 581 records” and “administrative records” independent of the con- tent of those records.42 Whether preservation of the essential functions of the judicial branch requires the confidentiality of JBE records is to be determined on a case-by-case basis in accordance with existing rules promulgated by this court, the judicial deliberations privilege, and state constitutional principles respecting the proper balance between the coordi- nate branches. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex
red
2 sentences2017Complex, 442 U.S. 1 , 99 S. Ct. 2100 , 60 L. 2017Complex, 442 U.S. 1 , 99 S. Ct. 2100 , 60 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Irish
green
1 sentence2017We concluded that the 15-year revoca- tion under Nebraska’s driving under the influence statute was part of the overall punishment of the defendant as opposed to a remedial condition.17 We further reasoned, in significant part, that the driving under the influence statutes required the revo- cation period to be a part of the court’s judgment of convic- tion.18 Relying on our previous decision in State v. Philipps,19 we held that the precursor to § 60-6,209 invaded the Board of 16 State v. Bainbridge, 249 Neb. 260 , 543 N.W.2d 154 (1996). 17 Id. 18 Id. 19 State v. Philipps, 246 Neb. 610 , 521 N | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Spady
green
2 sentences2005In State v. Spady, 264 Neb. 99 , 645 N.W.2d 539 (2002), we held that § 29-2264 was constitutional and did not violate the separation of powers clause of the Nebraska Constitution. 2005In State v. Spady, 264 Neb. 99 , 645 N.W.2d 539 (2002), we held that § 29-2264 was constitutional and did not violate the separation of powers clause of the Nebraska Constitution. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Kirkland v. Blaine County Medical Center
green
2 sentences2003Kirkland v. Blaine County Medical Center, 134 Idaho at 471 , 4 P.3d at 1122 . 2003Kirkland v. Blaine County Medical Center, 134 Idaho at 471 , 4 P.3d at 1122 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Giss v. Jordan
green
2 sentences2002Ct. Lancaster Co. 1994) the court discussed the separation of powers doctrine under the Nebraska Constitution as well as relevant case law: In Giss v. Jordan, 82 Ariz. 152 , 309 P.2d 779 (1957), the Supreme Court of Arizona held that statutory provisions relating to reimbursement of members of the Legislature for expenses, which provided that such claims were exempt from review by the State Auditor, were unconstitutional as an attempt to transfer to the Legislature the function of auditing delegated by the Constitution to the executive department. 2002Ct. Lancaster Co. 1994) the court discussed the separation of powers doctrine under the Nebraska Constitution as well as relevant case law: In Giss v. Jordan, 82 Ariz. 152 , 309 P.2d 779 (1957), the Supreme Court of Arizona held that statutory provisions relating to reimbursement of members of the Legislature for expenses, which provided that such claims were exempt from review by the State Auditor, were unconstitutional as an attempt to transfer to the Legislature the function of auditing delegated by the Constitution to the executive department. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State ex rel. Randall v. Hall
green
2 sentences2002Randall v. Hall, 125 Neb. 236 , 242-243, 249 N.W. 756 (1933) (discussing the importance and history of the separation of powers doctrine). 2002Randall v. Hall, 125 Neb. 236 , 242-243, 249 N.W. 756 (1933) (discussing the importance and history of the separation of powers doctrine). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ron Smith Trucking, Inc. v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1998See, e.g., Local 512 v Civil Service Dep’t, 209 Mich. App. 573 , 531 N.W.2d 790 (1995); Ron Smith Trucking, Inc. v. Jackson, 196 Ill. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Lux v. MENTAL HEALTH BD. OF POLK CTY.
green
2 sentences1995In Lux v. Mental Health Board of Polk County, 202 Neb. 106 , 274 N.W.2d 141 (1979), we considered whether a legislatively prescribed de novo standard of review violated the separation of powers doctrine. 1995In Lux v. Mental Health Board of Polk County, 202 Neb. 106 , 274 N.W.2d 141 (1979), we considered whether a legislatively prescribed de novo standard of review violated the separation of powers doctrine. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Boston v. Black
green
2 sentences1995As we stated in Boston, 215 Neb. at 711 , 340 N.W.2d at 408 , “[T]he standard of review in equal protection cases involving denial of good time is not that of strict scrutiny . . . .” We held that an application of the new good time law to offenders who were sentenced prior to the effective date of the new law without the Board of Pardons’ approval was impermissible under Nebraska’s Constitution because it amounted to a commutation of a sentence by legislative action in violation of the separation of powers clause. 1995As we stated in Boston, 215 Neb. at 711 , 340 N.W.2d at 408 , “[T]he standard of review in equal protection cases involving denial of good time is not that of strict scrutiny . . . .” We held that an application of the new good time law to offenders who were sentenced prior to the effective date of the new law without the Board of Pardons’ approval was impermissible under Nebraska’s Constitution because it amounted to a commutation of a sentence by legislative action in violation of the separation of powers clause. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Eaves v. Board of Medical Examiners
green
1 sentence1993See, also, Boswell v. Bd. of Veterinary Medicine, 477 N.W.2d 366 (Iowa 1991); Eaves v. Board of Medical Examiners, 467 N.W.2d 234 (Iowa 1991); In re Polk License Revocation, 90 N.J. 550, 449 A.2d 7 (1982). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| In Re the Revocation of the License of Polk green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Jackson green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| United States v. Hartwell green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Alexander v. State by and Through Allain green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Monaghan v. School District No. 1 green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Copple v. City of Lincoln green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Dickenson green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| People v. Hall green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Earls neutral | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Boisvert green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Mabry green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Faunt green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Olson green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Dean green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Terry Carpenter, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Angle v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Iannacone ex rel. Iannacone v. City of North Miami Beach neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| City of Miami Beach v. Schauer green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Schauer v. City of Miami Beach green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.