previously waived error in Nebraska

27 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2026 6 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Sellersgreen neb · 2010 · cited in 2 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018See id. 2018See id.	2	2
Ecker v. E&A Consulting Grp., Inc.green neb · 2019 · cited in 6 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2019–2024 2 sentences 2019We agree. [3-6] We have often said that failure to make a timely objec- tion waives the right to assert prejudicial error on appeal.3 When an issue is raised for the first time in an appellate court, it will be disregarded inasmuch as a lower court cannot com- mit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted 2 Salem Grain Co. v. Consolidated Grain & Barge Co., 297 Neb. 682 , 900 N.W.2d 909 (2017). 3 State v. Collins, 281 Neb. 927 , 799 N.W.2d 693 (2011). - 584 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports ECKER v. E & A CONSULTING GROUP Cite as 302 Neb. 578 to it 2019We agree. [3-6] We have often said that failure to make a timely objec- tion waives the right to assert prejudicial error on appeal.3 When an issue is raised for the first time in an appellate court, it will be disregarded inasmuch as a lower court cannot com- mit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted 2 Salem Grain Co. v. Consolidated Grain & Barge Co., 297 Neb. 682 , 900 N.W.2d 909 (2017). 3 State v. Collins, 281 Neb. 927 , 799 N.W.2d 693 (2011). - 584 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports ECKER v. E & A CONSULTING GROUP Cite as 302 Neb. 578 to it	1	6
State v. Fahlkgreen neb · 1994 · cited in 5 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1998–2006 2 sentences 2006State v. Hudson, 268 Neb. 151 , 680 N.W.2d 603 (2004); State v. Fahlk, 246 Neb. 834 , 524 N.W.2d 39 (1994). 2006State v. Hudson, 268 Neb. 151 , 680 N.W.2d 603 (2004); State v. Fahlk, 246 Neb. 834 , 524 N.W.2d 39 (1994).	1	5
State v. Bjorklundgreen neb · 2000 · cited in 2 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2001–2004 2 sentences 2004However, Bruna failed to object to the voir dire procedure outlined by the court or to request additional opportunity for voir dire after the court’s and parties’ initial inquiry, and “[i]t is a well-settled principle that one may not waive an error, gamble on a favorable result, and, upon obtaining an unfavorable result, assert the previously waived error.” State v. Bjorklund, 258 Neb. 432, 468 , 604 N.W.2d 169, 204 (2000) (error waived where defendant failed to object to prosecutor’s questions at voir dire). 2004However, Bruna failed to object to the voir dire procedure outlined by the court or to request additional opportunity for voir dire after the court’s and parties’ initial inquiry, and “[i]t is a well-settled principle that one may not waive an error, gamble on a favorable result, and, upon obtaining an unfavorable result, assert the previously waived error.” State v. Bjorklund, 258 Neb. 432, 468 , 604 N.W.2d 169, 204 (2000) (error waived where defendant failed to object to prosecutor’s questions at voir dire).	1	2
Yount v. Seagergreen neb · 1967 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See, also, Yount v. Seager, 181 Neb. 665 , 150 N.W.2d 245 (1967) (ordinarily, if party makes no challenge for cause and accepts jurors, party waives any objection to their selection as 822 jurors). 2004See, also, Yount v. Seager, 181 Neb. 665 , 150 N.W.2d 245 (1967) (ordinarily, if party makes no challenge for cause and accepts jurors, party waives any objection to their selection as 822 jurors).	1	1
State v. Myersgreen neb · 1994 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994“One may 848 not waive an error, gamble on a favorable result, and, upon obtaining an unfavorable result, assert the previously waived error.” State v. Myers, 244 Neb. 905, 915 , 510 N.W.2d 58, 67 (1994). 1994“One may 848 not waive an error, gamble on a favorable result, and, upon obtaining an unfavorable result, assert the previously waived error.” State v. Myers, 244 Neb. 905, 915 , 510 N.W.2d 58, 67 (1994).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (13)

Case	Cited	Years
Eletech, Inc. v. Conveyance Consulting Group green neb · 2021 2 sentences 2026Eletech, Inc. v. Conveyance Consulting Group, 308 Neb. 733 , 956 N.W.2d 692 (2021). 2021Group v. Easter, 286 Neb. 912 , 840 N.W.2d 465 (2013). - 740 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports ELETECH, INC. v. CONVEYANCE CONSULTING GROUP Cite as 308 Neb. 733 for the first time in an appellate court, it will be disregarded inasmuch as a lower court cannot commit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted to it for disposition. 6 Further, we have repeatedly said that one may not waive an error, gamble on a favorable result, and, upon obtaining an unfavorable result, assert the previously waived error. 7 For that reason, an issue not presented to or d	3	2021–2026
Salem Grain Co. v. Consolidated Grain & Barge Co. green neb · 2017 2 sentences 2019We agree. [3-6] We have often said that failure to make a timely objec- tion waives the right to assert prejudicial error on appeal.3 When an issue is raised for the first time in an appellate court, it will be disregarded inasmuch as a lower court cannot com- mit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted 2 Salem Grain Co. v. Consolidated Grain & Barge Co., 297 Neb. 682 , 900 N.W.2d 909 (2017). 3 State v. Collins, 281 Neb. 927 , 799 N.W.2d 693 (2011). - 584 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports ECKER v. E & A CONSULTING GROUP Cite as 302 Neb. 578 to it 2019We agree. [3-6] We have often said that failure to make a timely objec- tion waives the right to assert prejudicial error on appeal.3 When an issue is raised for the first time in an appellate court, it will be disregarded inasmuch as a lower court cannot com- mit error in resolving an issue never presented and submitted 2 Salem Grain Co. v. Consolidated Grain & Barge Co., 297 Neb. 682 , 900 N.W.2d 909 (2017). 3 State v. Collins, 281 Neb. 927 , 799 N.W.2d 693 (2011). - 584 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports ECKER v. E & A CONSULTING GROUP Cite as 302 Neb. 578 to it	2	2019–2019
Wolfe v. Abraham green neb · 1993 2 sentences 2004We noted the “controlling principle” that “one may not waive an error, gamble on a favorable verdict, and, upon obtaining an unfavorable result, assert the previously waived error.” Id. at 343 , 506 N.W.2d at 697 . 2004We noted the “controlling principle” that “one may not waive an error, gamble on a favorable verdict, and, upon obtaining an unfavorable result, assert the previously waived error.” Id. at 343 , 506 N.W.2d at 697 .	2	1994–2004
State v. Robinson green neb · 2006 2 sentences 2024State v. Robinson, 272 Neb. at 637 , 724 N.W.2d at 80 . 2024State v. Robinson, 272 Neb. at 637 , 724 N.W.2d at 80 .	1	2024–2024
Ronnfeldt Farms v. Arp green nebctapp · 2023 1 sentence 2023ARP Cite as 32 Neb.	1	2023–2023
State v. Herrera green neb · 2014 1 sentence 2019State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575 , 856 N.W.2d 310 (2014).	1	2019–2019
Baldwin v. Reese green scotus · 2004 2 sentences 2014We have repeat- edly said that one may not waive an error, gamble on a favor- able result, and, upon obtaining an unfavorable result, assert the previously waived error.11 8 State v. Taylor, 286 Neb. 966 , 840 N.W.2d 526 (2013). 9 Cf., e.g., Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 , 124 S. Ct. 1347 , 158 L. 2014We have repeat- edly said that one may not waive an error, gamble on a favor- able result, and, upon obtaining an unfavorable result, assert the previously waived error.11 8 State v. Taylor, 286 Neb. 966 , 840 N.W.2d 526 (2013). 9 Cf., e.g., Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 , 124 S. Ct. 1347 , 158 L.	1	2014–2014
Allegheny Power v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission green cadc · 2006 1 sentence 2014Ed. 2d 64 (2004); Allegheny Power v. Federal Energy Regulatory Com’n, 437 F.3d 1215 (D.C.	1	2014–2014
State v. Robinson green neb · 2006 1 sentence 2006Id.	1	2006–2006
State v. Hudson green neb · 2004 2 sentences 2006State v. Hudson, 268 Neb. 151 , 680 N.W.2d 603 (2004); State v. Fahlk, 246 Neb. 834 , 524 N.W.2d 39 (1994). 2006State v. Hudson, 268 Neb. 151 , 680 N.W.2d 603 (2004); State v. Fahlk, 246 Neb. 834 , 524 N.W.2d 39 (1994).	1	2006–2006
State v. Iromuanya green neb · 2006 1 sentence 2006State v. Iromuanya, ante p. 178, 719 N.W.2d 263 (2006).	1	2006–2006
State v. Trotter green neb · 2001 2 sentences 2002State v. Trotter, 262 Neb. 443 , 632 N.W.2d 325 (2001). 2002State v. Trotter, 262 Neb. 443 , 632 N.W.2d 325 (2001).	1	2002–2002
Fisher Corp. v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc. green neb · 1989 2 sentences 1993Fisher Corp. v. Consolidated Freightways, 230 Neb. 832 , 434 N.W.2d 17 (1989). 1993Fisher Corp. v. Consolidated Freightways, 230 Neb. 832 , 434 N.W.2d 17 (1989).	1	1993–1993

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-401 (6) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (6) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-303 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-611 (3) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1205 (3) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1409 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NE 27 (1993–2026) PA 4 (2020–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance