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.
21 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1904–2021 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. Tuckergreen2 sentences1990United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 , 92 S. Ct. 589 , 30 L. 1990United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 , 92 S. Ct. 589 , 30 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Goodpasturegreen2 sentences1990See, State v. Goodpasture, 215 Neb. 341 , 338 N.W.2d 446 (1983); State v. Porter, supra; State v. Rose, 183 Neb. 809 , 164 N.W.2d 646 (1969). 1990See, State v. Goodpasture, 215 Neb. 341 , 338 N.W.2d 446 (1983); State v. Porter, supra; State v. Rose, 183 Neb. 809 , 164 N.W.2d 646 (1969). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Portergreen2 sentences1990In State v. Jackson, 225 Neb. 843, 859, 408 N.W.2d 720, 731 (1987), we expressed: “In a sentence hearing, a court, generally, *889 has broad discretion concerning the source of information and the type of information to be considered.” This court, in State v. Porter, 209 Neb. 722, 723-24 , 310 N.W.2d 926, 927 (1981), observed: “We have gone so far as to say that the latitude allowed a sentencing judge in such instances is almost without limitation as long as it is relevant to the issue.” A sentencing judge may consider relevant information contained in a presentence report on the defendant to 1990In State v. Jackson, 225 Neb. 843, 859, 408 N.W.2d 720, 731 (1987), we expressed: “In a sentence hearing, a court, generally, *889 has broad discretion concerning the source of information and the type of information to be considered.” This court, in State v. Porter, 209 Neb. 722, 723-24 , 310 N.W.2d 926, 927 (1981), observed: “We have gone so far as to say that the latitude allowed a sentencing judge in such instances is almost without limitation as long as it is relevant to the issue.” A sentencing judge may consider relevant information contained in a presentence report on the defendant to | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1990In State v. Jackson, 225 Neb. 843, 859, 408 N.W.2d 720, 731 (1987), we expressed: “In a sentence hearing, a court, generally, *889 has broad discretion concerning the source of information and the type of information to be considered.” This court, in State v. Porter, 209 Neb. 722, 723-24 , 310 N.W.2d 926, 927 (1981), observed: “We have gone so far as to say that the latitude allowed a sentencing judge in such instances is almost without limitation as long as it is relevant to the issue.” A sentencing judge may consider relevant information contained in a presentence report on the defendant to 1990In State v. Jackson, 225 Neb. 843, 859, 408 N.W.2d 720, 731 (1987), we expressed: “In a sentence hearing, a court, generally, *889 has broad discretion concerning the source of information and the type of information to be considered.” This court, in State v. Porter, 209 Neb. 722, 723-24 , 310 N.W.2d 926, 927 (1981), observed: “We have gone so far as to say that the latitude allowed a sentencing judge in such instances is almost without limitation as long as it is relevant to the issue.” A sentencing judge may consider relevant information contained in a presentence report on the defendant to | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barkergreen2 sentences1989On account of a certain irregularity which occurred in conjunction with Barker’s sentencing, in March of 1988 this court set aside Barker’s sentence and remanded “this matter to the district court for further proceedings, namely, a sentence hearing to be conducted and sentence imposed by a judge other than the judge who imposed sentence on Barker.” State v. Barker, 227 Neb. 842, 854 , 420 N.W.2d 695, 702-03 (1988). 1989On account of a certain irregularity which occurred in conjunction with Barker’s sentencing, in March of 1988 this court set aside Barker’s sentence and remanded “this matter to the district court for further proceedings, namely, a sentence hearing to be conducted and sentence imposed by a judge other than the judge who imposed sentence on Barker.” State v. Barker, 227 Neb. 842, 854 , 420 N.W.2d 695, 702-03 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lesliegreen2 sentences1988See, also, State v. Leslie, 136 Ariz. 463 , 666 P.2d 1072 (1983) (after the jury found defendant guilty but before sentencing, the judge solicited contact with the victim’s relatives; held: contact with the victim’s relatives necessitated the judge’s disqualification from the proceedings). 1988See, also, State v. Leslie, 136 Ariz. 463 , 666 P.2d 1072 (1983) (after the jury found defendant guilty but before sentencing, the judge solicited contact with the victim’s relatives; held: contact with the victim’s relatives necessitated the judge’s disqualification from the proceedings). | 1 | 1 |
Richard Dean Holtan v. Robert Parratt, Warden of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complexgreen2 sentences1984In the federal habeas corpus proceedings the circuit, court was concerned that, when Holtan entered his plea, there was no reference to possible testimony from surviving witnesses at a sentence hearing, namely, “at no time during this colloquy did the parties or the court discuss the possibility that witnesses to the shooting could and would testify at the sentence hearing.” Holtan v. Parratt, 683 F.2d 1163, 1170 (8th Cir. 1982). 1984In the federal habeas corpus proceedings the circuit court was concerned that, when Holtan entered his plea, there was no reference to possible testimony from surviving witnesses at a sentence hearing, namely, "at no time during this colloquy did the parties or the court discuss the possibility that witnesses to the shooting could and would testify at the sentence hearing." Holtan v. Parratt, 683 F.2d 1163, 1170 (8th Cir.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Myers v. Willmeroth
neutral
2 sentences1958“When different instructions are given on the same subject, they should be considered together, and if they fairly submit the case, it will not be reversed for indefiniteness or ambiguity in one of the instructions. *539 “In determining whether or not there was error in a sentence or clause of an instruction, it will be considered with the instruction of which it is a part and the other instructions, and the true meaning thereof will be determined not from the sentence or phrase alone but by a consideration of all that is said on the subject.” See, also, Myers v. Willmeroth, 151 Neb. 712 , 39 1958“When different instructions are given on the same subject, they should be considered together, and if they fairly submit the case, it will not be reversed for indefiniteness or ambiguity in one of the instructions. *539 “In determining whether or not there was error in a sentence or clause of an instruction, it will be considered with the instruction of which it is a part and the other instructions, and the true meaning thereof will be determined not from the sentence or phrase alone but by a consideration of all that is said on the subject.” See, also, Myers v. Willmeroth, 151 Neb. 712 , 39 | 3 | 1951–1966 |
Roberts v. Carlson
green
2 sentences1944We have not overlooked the rule announced in Roberts v. Carlson, 142 Neb. 851 , 8 N. W. 2d 175 , to the effect that, “In determining whether there is error in the giving of a sentence in an instruction, it must be considered in connection with the instruction of which it is a part and all other instructions given by the court. 1944We have not overlooked the rule announced in Roberts v. Carlson, 142 Neb. 851 , 8 N. W. 2d 175 , to the effect that, “In determining whether there is error in the giving of a sentence in an instruction, it must be considered in connection with the instruction of which it is a part and all other instructions given by the court. | 3 | 1944–1949 |
Bolio v. Scholting
green
2 sentences1966Myers v. Willmeroth, 151 Neb. 712 , 39 N. W. 2d 423 ; Bolio v. Scholting, 152 Neb. 588 , 41 N. W. 2d 913 .” The instruction complained of clearly limits the damages for future pain to those proved to a reasonable certainty. 1966Myers v. Willmeroth, 151 Neb. 712 , 39 N. W. 2d 423 ; Bolio v. Scholting, 152 Neb. 588 , 41 N. W. 2d 913 .” The instruction complained of clearly limits the damages for future pain to those proved to a reasonable certainty. | 2 | 1951–1966 |
State v. Clear
green
2 sentences2021State v. Clear, 236 Neb. 648 , 463 N.W.2d 581 (1990). 2021State v. Clear, 236 Neb. 648 , 463 N.W.2d 581 (1990). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Solem v. Helm
red
2 sentences1993Cited by that court in support of the proposition is Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S. Ct. 3001 , 77 L. 1993Cited by that court in support of the proposition is Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S. Ct. 3001 , 77 L. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Rose
green
2 sentences1990See, State v. Goodpasture, 215 Neb. 341 , 338 N.W.2d 446 (1983); State v. Porter, supra; State v. Rose, 183 Neb. 809 , 164 N.W.2d 646 (1969). 1990See, State v. Goodpasture, 215 Neb. 341 , 338 N.W.2d 446 (1983); State v. Porter, supra; State v. Rose, 183 Neb. 809 , 164 N.W.2d 646 (1969). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Valencia
green
2 sentences1988In determining that the sentencing judge, when requested by the defendant, should have recused himself from the sentence hearing, the Arizona Supreme Court, holding that a judge should not initiate, invite, or consider ex parte communication concerning a pending or impending proceeding before the judge, concluded that “ [s]uch a rule is a requisite to the orderly administration of justice in any judicial system.” 124 Ariz. at 140 , 602 P.2d at 808 . 1988In determining that the sentencing judge, when requested by the defendant, should have recused himself from the sentence hearing, the Arizona Supreme Court, holding that a judge should not initiate, invite, or consider ex parte communication concerning a pending or impending proceeding before the judge, concluded that “ [s]uch a rule is a requisite to the orderly administration of justice in any judicial system.” 124 Ariz. at 140 , 602 P.2d at 808 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Schott
green
2 sentences1986Although the district court is empowered to review a sentence for error or abuse of discretion, State v. Schott, 222 Neb. 456, 384 N.W.2d 620 (1986), there is no statutory authority giving it jurisdiction to sentence the *267 defendant anew. 1986Although the district court is empowered to review a sentence for error or abuse of discretion, State v. Schott, 222 Neb. 456, 384 N.W.2d 620 (1986), there is no statutory authority giving it jurisdiction to sentence the *267 defendant anew. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Norman v. Sprague
neutral
2 sentences1966“In determining whether or not there was error in a sentence or clause of an instruction, it will be considered with the instruction of which it is a part and the other instructions, and the true meaning thereof will be determined not from the sentence or clause alone but by a consideration of all that is said on the subject.” Norman v. Sprague, 167 Neb. 528 , 93 N. W. 2d 637 . 1966“In determining whether or not there was error in a sentence or clause of an instruction, it will be considered with the instruction of which it is a part and the other instructions, and the true meaning thereof will be determined not from the sentence or clause alone but by a consideration of all that is said on the subject.” Norman v. Sprague, 167 Neb. 528 , 93 N. W. 2d 637 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Benedict v. Eppley Hotel Company
green
2 sentences1964In Benedict v. Eppley Hotel Co., 161 Neb. 280 , 73 N. W. 2d 228 , this court said: “In determining whether or not there is error in a sentence or clause of an instruction it will be considered with the instruction of which it is a part and the other parts of the charge to the jury and the true meaning thereof will be deduced not from the sentence or phrase alone but by a consideration of all that it said on the subject. 1964In Benedict v. Eppley Hotel Co., 161 Neb. 280 , 73 N. W. 2d 228 , this court said: “In determining whether or not there is error in a sentence or clause of an instruction it will be considered with the instruction of which it is a part and the other parts of the charge to the jury and the true meaning thereof will be deduced not from the sentence or phrase alone but by a consideration of all that it said on the subject. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Tate v. Borgman
green
1 sentence1958As recently as Tate v. Borgman, ante p. 299, 92 N. W. 2d 697 , we held: “Instructions must be considered and construed together, and if they are not sufficiently specific in some respects, it is the duty of counsel to offer requests for instructions that will supply the omission and, unless that is done, the judgment will not ordinarily be reversed for such defects.” In the light of such rules, we have examined all of the instructions. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Fimple v. Archer Ballroom Co.
green
2 sentences1957“The meaning of an instruction, not the phraseology, is the important consideration, and a claim of 'prejudice .will not be sustained when the meaning of the instruction is reasonably clear. ■ ■ . • • !' ‘-‘When different instructions-are given-on the same .subject, they should.be considered-together; and if they fairly -submit the case, it- will not be reversed -for indefi- . -niteness or -ambiguity in one of the • instructions. • , ■•- “In determining, whether or not there was error in a sentence or clause of an instruction, it will be considered .with the. instruction of which it .is.a part 1957“The meaning of an instruction, not the phraseology, is the important consideration, and a claim of 'prejudice .will not be sustained when the meaning of the instruction is reasonably clear. ■ ■ . • • !' ‘-‘When different instructions-are given-on the same .subject, they should.be considered-together; and if they fairly -submit the case, it- will not be reversed -for indefi- . -niteness or -ambiguity in one of the • instructions. • , ■•- “In determining, whether or not there was error in a sentence or clause of an instruction, it will be considered .with the. instruction of which it .is.a part | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Brown v. Hyslop
green
2 sentences1953Brown v. Hyslop, 153 Neb. 669 , 45 N. W. 2d 743 . 1953Brown v. Hyslop, 153 Neb. 669 , 45 N. W. 2d 743 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Oliver v. Nelson
green
2 sentences1949Roberts v. Carlson, 142 Neb. 851 , 8 N. W. 2d 175 ; Pruitt v. Lincoln City Lines, 147 Neb. 204 , 22 N. W. 2d 651 ; Oliver v. Nelson, 128 Neb. 160 , 258 N. W. 69 ; Zelenka v. Union Stock Yards Co., 82 Neb. 511 , 118 N. W. 103 . 1949Roberts v. Carlson, 142 Neb. 851 , 8 N. W. 2d 175 ; Pruitt v. Lincoln City Lines, 147 Neb. 204 , 22 N. W. 2d 651 ; Oliver v. Nelson, 128 Neb. 160 , 258 N. W. 69 ; Zelenka v. Union Stock Yards Co., 82 Neb. 511 , 118 N. W. 103 . | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Pruitt v. Lincoln City Lines
green
2 sentences1949Roberts v. Carlson, 142 Neb. 851 , 8 N. W. 2d 175 ; Pruitt v. Lincoln City Lines, 147 Neb. 204 , 22 N. W. 2d 651 ; Oliver v. Nelson, 128 Neb. 160 , 258 N. W. 69 ; Zelenka v. Union Stock Yards Co., 82 Neb. 511 , 118 N. W. 103 . 1949Roberts v. Carlson, 142 Neb. 851 , 8 N. W. 2d 175 ; Pruitt v. Lincoln City Lines, 147 Neb. 204 , 22 N. W. 2d 651 ; Oliver v. Nelson, 128 Neb. 160 , 258 N. W. 69 ; Zelenka v. Union Stock Yards Co., 82 Neb. 511 , 118 N. W. 103 . | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Zelenka v. Union Stock Yards Co.
green
2 sentences1949Roberts v. Carlson, 142 Neb. 851 , 8 N. W. 2d 175 ; Pruitt v. Lincoln City Lines, 147 Neb. 204 , 22 N. W. 2d 651 ; Oliver v. Nelson, 128 Neb. 160 , 258 N. W. 69 ; Zelenka v. Union Stock Yards Co., 82 Neb. 511 , 118 N. W. 103 . 1949Roberts v. Carlson, 142 Neb. 851 , 8 N. W. 2d 175 ; Pruitt v. Lincoln City Lines, 147 Neb. 204 , 22 N. W. 2d 651 ; Oliver v. Nelson, 128 Neb. 160 , 258 N. W. 69 ; Zelenka v. Union Stock Yards Co., 82 Neb. 511 , 118 N. W. 103 . | 1 | 1949–1949 |
Maxfield v. State
neutral
1 sentence1920On the other hand, in Maxfield v. State, 54 Neb. 44 , an instruction containing the identical sentence, as in instruction No. 5, “A doubt to justify an acquittal must be reasonable,” etc., was approved. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Bartels v. State
neutral
1 sentence1920The sentence in the instruction in question, “A doubt to justify an acquittal must be reasonable,” etc., was criticised in Bartels v. State, 91 Neb. 575 , in connection with another sentence in the instruction in that case, in which the jury Avere told that the rule that requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt “is not intended to aid any one'Avho is in fact guilty to escape,” and the giving of the instruction was held prejudicially erroneous. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Goemann v. State
green
1 sentence1920The sentence in instruction No. 5, “It must be a doubt which arises from the evidence or want of evidence,” etc., is substantially the same as found in Goemann v. State, 100 Neb. 772 , which was held free from error. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Boales v. Ferguson
green
1 sentence1904When this court said that an unconstitutional act is as ineffectual as though it had never been passed (Boales v. Ferguson, 55 Neb. 565 ), it stated what I conceive to be a truism, applicable to every word and syllable of an act held unconstitutional, whether it be a section, a part- of a section, a sentence or a clause, which is found by the court to be in conflict with some higher law. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
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.