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.
112 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1881–2026 48 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. Mrzagreen2 sentences2025We find that this assigned error does not comply with the specificity require- ment set forth in State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931, 926 N.W.2d 79 (2019). 2025We find that this assigned error does not comply with the specificity require- ment set forth in State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931, 926 N.W.2d 79 (2019). | 4 | 8 |
State v. Abdullahgreen2 sentences2025In determining whether the assigned error is stated with particularity, it must satisfy the two-prong test prescribed in State v. Abdullah, 289 Neb. 123 , 853 N.W.2d 858 (2014). 2025In determining whether the assigned error is stated with particularity, it must satisfy the two-prong test prescribed in State v. Abdullah, 289 Neb. 123 , 853 N.W.2d 858 (2014). | 4 | 8 |
State v. Ruppgreen2 sentences2026We find that this assigned error does not comply with the specificity set forth in State v. Rupp, 320 Neb. 502 , 28 N.W.3d 74 (2025). 2025In Judge Bishop’s view of our case law, “If the alleged deficient performance is identified in the assigned error and there is a directly corresponding heading and discussion in 15 Id. at 582 , 19 N.W.3d at 787. 16 Id. at 583, 19 N.W.3d at 788. 17 Id. at 586, 19 N.W.3d at 789. - 514 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 320 Nebraska Reports STATE V. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Lottergreen2 sentences2003We held that “[a] party who does not request a desired jury instruction cannot complain on appeal about incomplete instructions.” Lotter, 255 Neb. at 508, 586 N.W.2d at 628 . 1999See State v. Lotter, 255 Neb. 456 , 586 N.W.2d 591 (1998) (claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised for first time on direct appeal do not require dismissal ipso facto; determining factor is whether record is sufficient to adequately review question; when issue has not been raised or ruled on at trial court level and matter necessitates evidentiary hearing, appellate court will not address matter on direct appeal). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Leegreen2 sentences1998See, State v. Lee, 227 Neb. 277 , 417 N.W.2d 26 (1987); State v. Noll, 3 Neb. 1998See, State v. Lee, 227 Neb. 277 , 417 N.W.2d 26 (1987); State v. Noll, 3 Neb. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Woodgreen2 sentences2025The broad statement that an investigator should have been requested to assist in trial preparation is akin to the assigned error we found insufficiently pled in Woodruff, supra. See, also, State v. Wood, 310 Neb. 391 , 966 N.W.2d 825 (2021) (holding assignment of error that counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate case fully was insufficiently pled). 2025The broad statement that an investigator should have been requested to assist in trial preparation is akin to the assigned error we found insufficiently pled in Woodruff, supra. See, also, State v. Wood, 310 Neb. 391 , 966 N.W.2d 825 (2021) (holding assignment of error that counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate case fully was insufficiently pled). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1981“It is the law in Nebraska that, where allegedly prejudicial remarks of counsel do not appear in the bill of exceptions, this court is precluded from considering an assigned error concerning such remarks.” State v. Harris, 205 Neb. 844, 851 , 290 N.W.2d 645, 650 (1980). 1981“It is the law in Nebraska that, where allegedly prejudicial remarks of counsel do not appear in the bill of exceptions, this court is precluded from considering an assigned error concerning such remarks.” State v. Harris, 205 Neb. 844, 851 , 290 N.W.2d 645, 650 (1980). | 1 | 3 |
de Vries v. L & L Custom Buildersgreen2 sentences2025See de Vries v. L & L Custom Builders, 310 Neb. 543 , 968 N.W.2d 64 (2021). (ii) Statutory Definition of Negligence Lear assigns that the district court erred in instructing the jury using the statutory definition of negligence. 2025See de Vries v. L & L Custom Builders, 310 Neb. 543 , 968 N.W.2d 64 (2021). (ii) Statutory Definition of Negligence Lear assigns that the district court erred in instructing the jury using the statutory definition of negligence. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Blakegreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. $18,000green1 sentence2025See State v. $18,000, 311 Neb. 621 , 974 N.W.2d 290 (2022). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sinkeygreen2 sentences2025See State v. Sinkey, 303 Neb. 345 , 929 N.W.2d 35 (2019) (holding that allegations that counsel “lightly” cross-examined two witnesses was insufficiently pled due to absence of detail regarding what questions should have been asked that would have contributed to defense). -8- Notwithstanding the insufficiency of Ashing’s assigned error, we note that the State called Dauel and elicited much of the testimony related to Ashing’s behavior and demeanor after he had arrived at their home but prior to the stabbing. 2025See State v. Sinkey, 303 Neb. 345 , 929 N.W.2d 35 (2019) (holding that allegations that counsel “lightly” cross-examined two witnesses was insufficiently pled due to absence of detail regarding what questions should have been asked that would have contributed to defense). -8- Notwithstanding the insufficiency of Ashing’s assigned error, we note that the State called Dauel and elicited much of the testimony related to Ashing’s behavior and demeanor after he had arrived at their home but prior to the stabbing. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. THOI VOgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Scalist v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nesbitt Ex Rel. Himself & All Other Similarly Situated Neb. State Penitentiary Segregated Prisoners v. Frakesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Santos-Romerogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Scalise v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rixson Merle Perry v. Globe Auto Recycling, Inc., William J. Zuccaro, William M. Zuccaro, Robert Zuccaro, and Daniel Carmin Tarrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gallagher v. Graham (In Re Estate of Graham)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Blahagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Thomasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Donald v. Donaldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| TNT Cattle Co. v. Fifegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Coleman v. Kahlergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McManusgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mays v. Midnite Dreams, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Interiano Alvaradogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wattgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hass v. Nethgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Genthon v. Kratvillered | 1 | 1 |
| Slansky v. Nebraska State Patrolgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Weathersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Boppre
green
2 sentences2026State v. Boppre, 315 Neb. 203 , 995 N.W.2d 28 (2023). 2026State v. Boppre, 315 Neb. 203 , 995 N.W.2d 28 (2023). | 3 | 2025–2026 |
State v. Golyar
green
2 sentences2019Id. *418 On direct appeal, allegations of how the defendant was prejudiced by trial counsel's allegedly deficient conduct are unnecessary in our determination of whether the trial record supports the assigned error. 2019Id. [25,26] On direct appeal, allegations of how the defendant was prejudiced by trial counsel’s allegedly deficient conduct are unnecessary in our determination of whether the trial record supports the assigned error. | 3 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Filholm
green
2 sentences2019State v. Abdullah, 289 Neb. 123 , 853 N.W.2d 858 (2014), citing State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763 , 848 N.W.2d 571 (2014). 2019State v. Abdullah, 289 Neb. 123 , 853 N.W.2d 858 (2014), citing State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763 , 848 N.W.2d 571 (2014). | 3 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Hagens
green
2 sentences2026See, State v. Rupp, 320 Neb. 502 , 28 N.W.3d 74 (2025); State v. -5- Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 , 926 N.W.2d 79 (2019), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Hagens, 320 Neb. 65 , 26 N.W.3d 174 (2025). 2026See, State v. Rupp, 320 Neb. 502 , 28 N.W.3d 74 (2025); State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 , 926 N.W.2d 79 (2019), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Hagens, 320 Neb. 65 , 26 N.W.3d 174 (2025). | 2 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Trail
green
2 sentences2022TRAIL Cite as 312 Neb. 843 requirement of arguing an assigned error to obtain consider- ation by an appellate court. 60 [18] In the absence of analytical support, we hold the Eighth Amendment and article I, §§ 9 and 15, of the Nebraska Constitution are not violated by death qualification in a capital case. 2022TRAIL Cite as 312 Neb. 843 requirement of arguing an assigned error to obtain consider- ation by an appellate court. 60 [18] In the absence of analytical support, we hold the Eighth Amendment and article I, §§ 9 and 15, of the Nebraska Constitution are not violated by death qualification in a capital case. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2014This assigned error is without merit. [1-3] In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. 2014This assigned error is without merit. [1-3] In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Anderson v. Cowger
green
2 sentences2007In Anderson v. Cowger, 158 Neb. 772 , 65 N.W.2d 51 (1954), the employee was off work for a period of time following his accident and injury and then returned to work part time. 2007In Anderson v. Cowger, 158 Neb. 772 , 65 N.W.2d 51 (1954), the employee was off work for a period of time following his accident and injury and then returned to work part time. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Hollingsworth v. BD. OF ED. OF SCHOOL DIST.
green
2 sentences1999Daily’s argument to the district court on this point was based on Hollingsworth v. Board of Education, 208 Neb. 350 , 303 N.W.2d 506 (1981). 1999Daily’s argument to the district court on this point was based on Hollingsworth v. Board of Education, 208 Neb. 350 , 303 N.W.2d 506 (1981). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Noll
green
2 sentences1998See, State v. Lee, 227 Neb. 277 , 417 N.W.2d 26 (1987); State v. Noll, 3 Neb. 1996See, State v. Lee, 227 Neb. 277 , 417 N.W.2d 26 (1987); State v. Noll, 3 Neb. | 2 | 1996–1998 |
Farmers Co-Op Grain Co. v. Leuenberger
green
2 sentences1985Each assignment of error shall be separately numbered and paragraphed, bearing in mind that consideration of the case will be limited to errors assigned and discussed.... *311 In Farmers Co-op Grain Co. v. Leuenberger, 217 Neb. 288 , 348 N.W.2d 135 (1984), we held that in the absence of an assigned error, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed. 1985Each assignment of error shall be separately numbered and paragraphed, bearing in mind that consideration of the case will be limited to errors assigned and discussed.... *311 In Farmers Co-op Grain Co. v. Leuenberger, 217 Neb. 288 , 348 N.W.2d 135 (1984), we held that in the absence of an assigned error, the judgment of the district court will be affirmed. | 2 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Childs
green
2 sentences2026We have already addressed the motion to suppress, so we consider only Mumm’s broad assertion that the court “failed to sustain objections.” In the argument section of Mumm’s brief regarding this assigned error, he states that there is “no two-plate rule that would allow the Deputy to unconstitutionally seize [him],” the deputy “failed to establish” he was doing “anything illegal or about to do anything illegal,” and the deputy’s basis for the stop “violates case law set forth” in State v. Childs, 242 Neb. 426 , 495 N.W.2d 475 (1993). 2026We have already addressed the motion to suppress, so we consider only Mumm’s broad assertion that the court “failed to sustain objections.” In the argument section of Mumm’s brief regarding this assigned error, he states that there is “no two-plate rule that would allow the Deputy to unconstitutionally seize [him],” the deputy “failed to establish” he was doing “anything illegal or about to do anything illegal,” and the deputy’s basis for the stop “violates case law set forth” in State v. Childs, 242 Neb. 426 , 495 N.W.2d 475 (1993). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10832420
green
1 sentence2026Thus, the allegation “require[s] additional information to understand precisely what the assignment attacks.” State v. Lopez, 321 Neb. 118, 149 , 32 N.W.3d 868 (2026). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10864182
green
2 sentences2026Therefore, we read this assigned error to focus on her standing to bring this action on behalf of the Estate. [9] Under the Nebraska Probate Code, the right and duty to sue and recover assets for an estate reside not in the devisees, - 293 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 34 Nebraska Appellate Reports REILLY v. PANSING HOGAN ERNST & BACHMAN Cite as 34 Neb. 2026Therefore, we read this assigned error to focus on her standing to bring this action on behalf of the Estate. [9] Under the Nebraska Probate Code, the right and duty to sue and recover assets for an estate reside not in the devisees, - 293 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 34 Nebraska Appellate Reports REILLY v. PANSING HOGAN ERNST & BACHMAN Cite as 34 Neb. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Clark v. Scheels All Sports
green
2 sentences2025Clark v. Scheels All Sports, 314 Neb. 49 , 989 N.W.2d 39 (2023). 2025Clark v. Scheels All Sports, 314 Neb. 49 , 989 N.W.2d 39 (2023). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. German
green
2 sentences2025But in our view, if there was any confusion governing the requirement that the claim must separately be stated with particularity within the assign- ments of error section of the brief for the appellant, meaning the assigned error itself must satisfy the two-prong pleading standard, that matter was recently settled in State v. German, 316 Neb. 841 , 7 N.W.3d 206 (2024). 2025But in our view, if there was any confusion governing the requirement that the claim must separately be stated with particularity within the assign- ments of error section of the brief for the appellant, meaning the assigned error itself must satisfy the two-prong pleading standard, that matter was recently settled in State v. German, 316 Neb. 841 , 7 N.W.3d 206 (2024). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Rush
green
2 sentences2025As the dissent notes, in State v. Rush, 317 Neb. 622 , 11 N.W.3d 394 (2024), modified on denial of rehearing 317 Neb. 917 , 12 N.W.3d 787 , the Nebraska Supreme Court - 579 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 33 Nebraska Appellate Reports STATE V. 2025I have empha- sized the word “claim” because, as in State v. Rush, 317 Neb. 622 , 11 N.W.3d 394 (2024), modified on denial of rehearing 317 Neb. 917 , 12 N.W.3d 787 , an assigned error that alleges deficient performance with some degree of specificity, along with its corresponding argument providing further details, may together sufficiently present the claim for consideration on direct appeal. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Rush -- supplemental opinion
green
2 sentences2025As the dissent notes, in State v. Rush, 317 Neb. 622 , 11 N.W.3d 394 (2024), modified on denial of rehearing 317 Neb. 917 , 12 N.W.3d 787 , the Nebraska Supreme Court - 579 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 33 Nebraska Appellate Reports STATE V. 2025I have empha- sized the word “claim” because, as in State v. Rush, 317 Neb. 622 , 11 N.W.3d 394 (2024), modified on denial of rehearing 317 Neb. 917 , 12 N.W.3d 787 , an assigned error that alleges deficient performance with some degree of specificity, along with its corresponding argument providing further details, may together sufficiently present the claim for consideration on direct appeal. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Oldson
green
2 sentences2025State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718 , 884 N.W.2d 10 (2016). 2025State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718 , 884 N.W.2d 10 (2016). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Rupp
green
2 sentences2025RUPP Cite as 33 Neb. 2025RUPP Cite as 33 Neb. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Hall
neutral
1 sentence2025HALL Cite as 33 Neb. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| How v. Mars green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Irish green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Timothy L. Ashford, PC LLO v. Roses green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Carlson green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Mabior green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Davis green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Prior green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Malone green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Jackson v. Denno green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Ash green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| In Re Interest of Jagger L. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Bridwell v. Walton green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Oliveria-Coutinho green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In re Estate of Forgey green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Zapata v. McHugh green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Ehlers v. Perry green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Kirby green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Salvador Rodriguez green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Walker v. Probandt green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.