error instruction in Nebraska

1958Co., 74 Neb. 440 , 104 N. W. 876 . “ ‘An error in an instruction is not cured by the giving of other instructions, where such error consists, not of an omission of some material fact, but of an affirmative statement by the court which, when considered with the other instructions, tends to confuse the jury.’ Wilch v. Western Asphalt Paving Corp., 124 Neb. 177 , 245 N. W. 605 .” In Barney v. Adcock, 162 Neb. 179 , 75 N. W. 2d 683 , this court said, citing numerous authorities: “A trial court may not make the success of a party to the case dependent upon a hypothesis foreign to the litigation. *

1958Co., 74 Neb. 440 , 104 N. W. 876 . “ ‘An error in an instruction is not cured by the giving of other instructions, where such error consists, not of an omission of some material fact, but of an affirmative statement by the court which, when considered with the other instructions, tends to confuse the jury.’ Wilch v. Western Asphalt Paving Corp., 124 Neb. 177 , 245 N. W. 605 .” In Barney v. Adcock, 162 Neb. 179 , 75 N. W. 2d 683 , this court said, citing numerous authorities: “A trial court may not make the success of a party to the case dependent upon a hypothesis foreign to the litigation. *

1958What was said in In re Estate of Potts, 144 Neb. 729 , 14 N. W. 2d-323, is here applicable. *242 Therein we said: “Where a jury found the defendant to be free from negligence in a personal injury action, an error in the instruction stating the measure of damages is necessarily harmless.” Until a jury finds appellee is entitled to recover any error in the instruction relating to damages could not be prejudicial.

1954In re Estate of Potts, 144 Neb. 729 , 14 N. W. 2d 323 , states the rule: “Where a jury found the defendant to be free from negligence in a personal injury action, an error in the instruction stating the measure of damages is necessarily harmless.” See, also, Shiman Bros. & Co. v. Nebraska Nat.

2024State v. Cox, 314 Neb. 104 , 989 N.W.2d 65 (2023). (a) Trial Court Error In claim No. 1, Harris alleged that the trial court erred in denying his requests to represent himself at trial in violation of his constitutional rights.

2024State v. Cox, 314 Neb. 104 , 989 N.W.2d 65 (2023). (a) Trial Court Error In claim No. 1, Harris alleged that the trial court erred in denying his requests to represent himself at trial in violation of his constitutional rights.

2019First, the court relied on - 180 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. SMITH Cite as 302 Neb. 154 evidence other than R.F.’s testimony and R.F.’s testimony was helpful only to the extent it corroborated other evidence.

1996The error in the instruction of impermissibly shifting the burden of proof on malice was not “ ‘so basic to a fair trial’ ” that it could never be harmless. 478 U.S. at 580 .

1996The error in the instruction of impermissibly shifting the burden of proof on malice was not "`so basic to a fair trial'" that it could never be harmless. 478 U.S. at 580 , 106 S.Ct. at 3107 .

1989The error in the instruction mandates that the judgment be vacated and the cause remanded for a new trial. “ ‘ “A trial court should eliminate immaterial and superfluous matters and submit to the jury by instructions only matters properly to be decided by it in arriving at its verdict.” ’ ” Empire State Building Co., supra at 192, 318 N.W.2d at 70 , citing Bezdek v. *280 Patrick, 167 Neb. 754 , 94 N.W.2d 482 (1959).

1989The error in the instruction mandates that the judgment be vacated and the cause remanded for a new trial. “ ‘ “A trial court should eliminate immaterial and superfluous matters and submit to the jury by instructions only matters properly to be decided by it in arriving at its verdict.” ’ ” Empire State Building Co., supra at 192, 318 N.W.2d at 70 , citing Bezdek v. *280 Patrick, 167 Neb. 754 , 94 N.W.2d 482 (1959).

1989The error in the instruction mandates that the judgment be vacated and the cause remanded for a new trial. “ ‘ “A trial court should eliminate immaterial and superfluous matters and submit to the jury by instructions only matters properly to be decided by it in arriving at its verdict.” ’ ” Empire State Building Co., supra at 192, 318 N.W.2d at 70 , citing Bezdek v. *280 Patrick, 167 Neb. 754 , 94 N.W.2d 482 (1959).

1958Co., 74 Neb. 440 , 104 N. W. 876 . “ ‘An error in an instruction is not cured by the giving of other instructions, where such error consists, not of an omission of some material fact, but of an affirmative statement by the court which, when considered with the other instructions, tends to confuse the jury.’ Wilch v. Western Asphalt Paving Corp., 124 Neb. 177 , 245 N. W. 605 .” In Barney v. Adcock, 162 Neb. 179 , 75 N. W. 2d 683 , this court said, citing numerous authorities: “A trial court may not make the success of a party to the case dependent upon a hypothesis foreign to the litigation. *

1958Co., 74 Neb. 440 , 104 N. W. 876 . “ ‘An error in an instruction is not cured by the giving of other instructions, where such error consists, not of an omission of some material fact, but of an affirmative statement by the court which, when considered with the other instructions, tends to confuse the jury.’ Wilch v. Western Asphalt Paving Corp., 124 Neb. 177 , 245 N. W. 605 .” In Barney v. Adcock, 162 Neb. 179 , 75 N. W. 2d 683 , this court said, citing numerous authorities: “A trial court may not make the success of a party to the case dependent upon a hypothesis foreign to the litigation. *

1958Hence an instruction should be clear and concise and should not go beyond any issue or issues of fact in the case as made by the pleadings of the parties.” See, also, Harsche v. Czyz, 157 Neb. 699 , 61 N. W. 2d 265 .

1958Hence an instruction should be clear and concise and should not go beyond any issue or issues of fact in the case as made by the pleadings of the parties.” See, also, Harsche v. Czyz, 157 Neb. 699 , 61 N. W. 2d 265 .

1958Co., 74 Neb. 440 , 104 N. W. 876 . “ ‘An error in an instruction is not cured by the giving of other instructions, where such error consists, not of an omission of some material fact, but of an affirmative statement by the court which, when considered with the other instructions, tends to confuse the jury.’ Wilch v. Western Asphalt Paving Corp., 124 Neb. 177 , 245 N. W. 605 .” In Barney v. Adcock, 162 Neb. 179 , 75 N. W. 2d 683 , this court said, citing numerous authorities: “A trial court may not make the success of a party to the case dependent upon a hypothesis foreign to the litigation. *

1958Co., 74 Neb. 440 , 104 N. W. 876 . “ ‘An error in an instruction is not cured by the giving of other instructions, where such error consists, not of an omission of some material fact, but of an affirmative statement by the court which, when considered with the other instructions, tends to confuse the jury.’ Wilch v. Western Asphalt Paving Corp., 124 Neb. 177 , 245 N. W. 605 .” In Barney v. Adcock, 162 Neb. 179 , 75 N. W. 2d 683 , this court said, citing numerous authorities: “A trial court may not make the success of a party to the case dependent upon a hypothesis foreign to the litigation. *

1954Hotel Co., 146 Neb. 47 , 18 N. W. 2d 551 ; Potach v. Hrauda, 132 Neb. 288 , 271 N. W. 795 ; Murphy v. Shibiya, 125 Neb. 487 , 250 N. W. 746 ; Mensinger v. Ainsworth Light & Power Co., 94 Neb. 465 , 143 N. W. 475 ; Whiteside v. Adams Express Co., 89 Neb. 430 , 131 N. W. 953 .

1954Hotel Co., 146 Neb. 47 , 18 N. W. 2d 551 ; Potach v. Hrauda, 132 Neb. 288 , 271 N. W. 795 ; Murphy v. Shibiya, 125 Neb. 487 , 250 N. W. 746 ; Mensinger v. Ainsworth Light & Power Co., 94 Neb. 465 , 143 N. W. 475 ; Whiteside v. Adams Express Co., 89 Neb. 430 , 131 N. W. 953 .

1954Hotel Co., 146 Neb. 47 , 18 N. W. 2d 551 ; Potach v. Hrauda, 132 Neb. 288 , 271 N. W. 795 ; Murphy v. Shibiya, 125 Neb. 487 , 250 N. W. 746 ; Mensinger v. Ainsworth Light & Power Co., 94 Neb. 465 , 143 N. W. 475 ; Whiteside v. Adams Express Co., 89 Neb. 430 , 131 N. W. 953 .

1954Hotel Co., 146 Neb. 47 , 18 N. W. 2d 551 ; Potach v. Hrauda, 132 Neb. 288 , 271 N. W. 795 ; Murphy v. Shibiya, 125 Neb. 487 , 250 N. W. 746 ; Mensinger v. Ainsworth Light & Power Co., 94 Neb. 465 , 143 N. W. 475 ; Whiteside v. Adams Express Co., 89 Neb. 430 , 131 N. W. 953 .

1954Hotel Co., 146 Neb. 47 , 18 N. W. 2d 551 ; Potach v. Hrauda, 132 Neb. 288 , 271 N. W. 795 ; Murphy v. Shibiya, 125 Neb. 487 , 250 N. W. 746 ; Mensinger v. Ainsworth Light & Power Co., 94 Neb. 465 , 143 N. W. 475 ; Whiteside v. Adams Express Co., 89 Neb. 430 , 131 N. W. 953 .

1954Hotel Co., 146 Neb. 47 , 18 N. W. 2d 551 ; Potach v. Hrauda, 132 Neb. 288 , 271 N. W. 795 ; Murphy v. Shibiya, 125 Neb. 487 , 250 N. W. 746 ; Mensinger v. Ainsworth Light & Power Co., 94 Neb. 465 , 143 N. W. 475 ; Whiteside v. Adams Express Co., 89 Neb. 430 , 131 N. W. 953 .

1954Hotel Co., 146 Neb. 47 , 18 N. W. 2d 551 ; Potach v. Hrauda, 132 Neb. 288 , 271 N. W. 795 ; Murphy v. Shibiya, 125 Neb. 487 , 250 N. W. 746 ; Mensinger v. Ainsworth Light & Power Co., 94 Neb. 465 , 143 N. W. 475 ; Whiteside v. Adams Express Co., 89 Neb. 430 , 131 N. W. 953 .

1954Hotel Co., 146 Neb. 47 , 18 N. W. 2d 551 ; Potach v. Hrauda, 132 Neb. 288 , 271 N. W. 795 ; Murphy v. Shibiya, 125 Neb. 487 , 250 N. W. 746 ; Mensinger v. Ainsworth Light & Power Co., 94 Neb. 465 , 143 N. W. 475 ; Whiteside v. Adams Express Co., 89 Neb. 430 , 131 N. W. 953 .

1954Hotel Co., 146 Neb. 47 , 18 N. W. 2d 551 ; Potach v. Hrauda, 132 Neb. 288 , 271 N. W. 795 ; Murphy v. Shibiya, 125 Neb. 487 , 250 N. W. 746 ; Mensinger v. Ainsworth Light & Power Co., 94 Neb. 465 , 143 N. W. 475 ; Whiteside v. Adams Express Co., 89 Neb. 430 , 131 N. W. 953 .

1954Hotel Co., 146 Neb. 47 , 18 N. W. 2d 551 ; Potach v. Hrauda, 132 Neb. 288 , 271 N. W. 795 ; Murphy v. Shibiya, 125 Neb. 487 , 250 N. W. 746 ; Mensinger v. Ainsworth Light & Power Co., 94 Neb. 465 , 143 N. W. 475 ; Whiteside v. Adams Express Co., 89 Neb. 430 , 131 N. W. 953 .

1930We have said: “Where two conflicting instructions are given on a question, one containing an incorrect, and the other a correct, statement of the law, the latter will not cure the former.” Koehn v. City of Hastings, 114 Neb. 106 .

1922Standard Distilling & Distributing Co. v. Harris, supra; Burlingim v. Baders, 45 Neb. 673 ; Beck v. State, 51 Neb. 106 ; Bergeron v. State, 53 Neb. 752 ; Knapp v. Chicago, K. & N. R.

1922Standard Distilling & Distributing Co. v. Harris, supra; Burlingim v. Baders, 45 Neb. 673 ; Beck v. State, 51 Neb. 106 ; Bergeron v. State, 53 Neb. 752 ; Knapp v. Chicago, K. & N. R.

1922Standard Distilling & Distributing Co. v. Harris, supra; Burlingim v. Baders, 45 Neb. 673 ; Beck v. State, 51 Neb. 106 ; Bergeron v. State, 53 Neb. 752 ; Knapp v. Chicago, K. & N. R.

1922Standard Distilling & Distributing Co. v. Harris, supra; Burlingim v. Baders, 45 Neb. 673 ; Beck v. State, 51 Neb. 106 ; Bergeron v. State, 53 Neb. 752 ; Knapp v. Chicago, K. & N. R.

1912The quotation made by plaintiff upon this point from Corlo v. Blossom, 162 Mass. 330 , so states, viz.: “If a person builds and maintains upon his premises a chimney so that, if it falls, it will fall upon and injure the adjoining premises, he is bound, in the exercise of proper care, to construct it so that it will withstand any gales which experience shows are reasonably to be anticipated in that locality.” That is a correct statement of the law, and it shows the error in the instruction requested by plaintiff.

1896(Jolly v. State, 43 Neb., 857 .) By the third instruction the court told the jury, in effect, that the burden of showing a license or permit was upon the defendant.

1882Meredith v. Kennard, 1 Neb., 312 .