Johnson motion in Nebraska

2025Johnson’s claim that the yard waste sticker charge is subject to the voter approval requirement in § 13-2020(4) presents a matter of statutory interpretation that we review independently of the trial court. 59 In construing this statute, we are guided by well-settled principles. [31-35] Statutory interpretation begins with the text, and the text is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. 60 It 58 See, generally, Winter Brothers v. City of Beresford, 652 N.W.2d 99 (S.D. 2002) (reasoning no favoritism shown by public body in answering one bidder’s questions when answers did not result in bid

2025However, because the order proceeded to address the merits and dispose of the case on summary judgment, we understand the court to have impliedly determined that Johnson’s affidavit established his standing to bring the action in the first instance. 8 No party challenges the district court’s implicit standing determination, but we nevertheless address Johnson’s standing as a threshold matter later in this opinion. (ii) Challenge to Bid Process When considering Johnson’s claim challenging the bid process, the court relied on a set of facts that had been agreed to 8 See Hauxwell v. Henning, 291

2025However, because the order proceeded to address the merits and dispose of the case on summary judgment, we understand the court to have impliedly determined that Johnson’s affidavit established his standing to bring the action in the first instance. 8 No party challenges the district court’s implicit standing determination, but we nevertheless address Johnson’s standing as a threshold matter later in this opinion. (ii) Challenge to Bid Process When considering Johnson’s claim challenging the bid process, the court relied on a set of facts that had been agreed to 8 See Hauxwell v. Henning, 291

2025Moreover, the motion to amend was filed just a few days before the hearing 32 § 6-1115(a) (codified in 2008). 33 Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538, 549 , 985 N.W.2d 402 , 413 (2023). 34 See, e.g., Sinu, supra note 15 ; Jacob v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 313 Neb. 109 , 982 N.W.2d 815 (2022); McCaulley v. C L Enters., 309 Neb. 141 , 959 N.W.2d 225 (2021); InterCall, Inc. v. Egenera, Inc., 284 Neb. 801 , 824 N.W.2d 12 (2012). 35 Jacob, supra note 34 . 36 Id. - 424 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports JOHNSON V.

2025Moreover, the motion to amend was filed just a few days before the hearing 32 § 6-1115(a) (codified in 2008). 33 Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538, 549 , 985 N.W.2d 402 , 413 (2023). 34 See, e.g., Sinu, supra note 15 ; Jacob v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 313 Neb. 109 , 982 N.W.2d 815 (2022); McCaulley v. C L Enters., 309 Neb. 141 , 959 N.W.2d 225 (2021); InterCall, Inc. v. Egenera, Inc., 284 Neb. 801 , 824 N.W.2d 12 (2012). 35 Jacob, supra note 34 . 36 Id. - 424 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports JOHNSON V.

2025Moreover, the motion to amend was filed just a few days before the hearing 32 § 6-1115(a) (codified in 2008). 33 Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538, 549 , 985 N.W.2d 402 , 413 (2023). 34 See, e.g., Sinu, supra note 15 ; Jacob v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 313 Neb. 109 , 982 N.W.2d 815 (2022); McCaulley v. C L Enters., 309 Neb. 141 , 959 N.W.2d 225 (2021); InterCall, Inc. v. Egenera, Inc., 284 Neb. 801 , 824 N.W.2d 12 (2012). 35 Jacob, supra note 34 . 36 Id. - 424 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports JOHNSON V.

2025Moreover, the motion to amend was filed just a few days before the hearing 32 § 6-1115(a) (codified in 2008). 33 Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538, 549 , 985 N.W.2d 402 , 413 (2023). 34 See, e.g., Sinu, supra note 15 ; Jacob v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 313 Neb. 109 , 982 N.W.2d 815 (2022); McCaulley v. C L Enters., 309 Neb. 141 , 959 N.W.2d 225 (2021); InterCall, Inc. v. Egenera, Inc., 284 Neb. 801 , 824 N.W.2d 12 (2012). 35 Jacob, supra note 34 . 36 Id. - 424 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports JOHNSON V.

2025Johnson’s claim that the yard waste sticker charge is subject to the voter approval requirement in § 13-2020(4) presents a matter of statutory interpretation that we review independently of the trial court. 59 In construing this statute, we are guided by well-settled principles. [31-35] Statutory interpretation begins with the text, and the text is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. 60 It 58 See, generally, Winter Brothers v. City of Beresford, 652 N.W.2d 99 (S.D. 2002) (reasoning no favoritism shown by public body in answering one bidder’s questions when answers did not result in bid

2025Johnson’s claim that the yard waste sticker charge is subject to the voter approval requirement in § 13-2020(4) presents a matter of statutory interpretation that we review independently of the trial court. 59 In construing this statute, we are guided by well-settled principles. [31-35] Statutory interpretation begins with the text, and the text is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. 60 It 58 See, generally, Winter Brothers v. City of Beresford, 652 N.W.2d 99 (S.D. 2002) (reasoning no favoritism shown by public body in answering one bidder’s questions when answers did not result in bid

2025However, because the order proceeded to address the merits and dispose of the case on summary judgment, we understand the court to have impliedly determined that Johnson’s affidavit established his standing to bring the action in the first instance. 8 No party challenges the district court’s implicit standing determination, but we nevertheless address Johnson’s standing as a threshold matter later in this opinion. (ii) Challenge to Bid Process When considering Johnson’s claim challenging the bid process, the court relied on a set of facts that had been agreed to 8 See Hauxwell v. Henning, 291

2025However, because the order proceeded to address the merits and dispose of the case on summary judgment, we understand the court to have impliedly determined that Johnson’s affidavit established his standing to bring the action in the first instance. 8 No party challenges the district court’s implicit standing determination, but we nevertheless address Johnson’s standing as a threshold matter later in this opinion. (ii) Challenge to Bid Process When considering Johnson’s claim challenging the bid process, the court relied on a set of facts that had been agreed to 8 See Hauxwell v. Henning, 291

2025Moreover, the motion to amend was filed just a few days before the hearing 32 § 6-1115(a) (codified in 2008). 33 Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538, 549 , 985 N.W.2d 402 , 413 (2023). 34 See, e.g., Sinu, supra note 15 ; Jacob v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 313 Neb. 109 , 982 N.W.2d 815 (2022); McCaulley v. C L Enters., 309 Neb. 141 , 959 N.W.2d 225 (2021); InterCall, Inc. v. Egenera, Inc., 284 Neb. 801 , 824 N.W.2d 12 (2012). 35 Jacob, supra note 34 . 36 Id. - 424 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports JOHNSON V.

2025Moreover, the motion to amend was filed just a few days before the hearing 32 § 6-1115(a) (codified in 2008). 33 Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538, 549 , 985 N.W.2d 402 , 413 (2023). 34 See, e.g., Sinu, supra note 15 ; Jacob v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 313 Neb. 109 , 982 N.W.2d 815 (2022); McCaulley v. C L Enters., 309 Neb. 141 , 959 N.W.2d 225 (2021); InterCall, Inc. v. Egenera, Inc., 284 Neb. 801 , 824 N.W.2d 12 (2012). 35 Jacob, supra note 34 . 36 Id. - 424 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports JOHNSON V.

2024And the district court abused its discretion when it denied Johnson’s claim “stating that Johnson’s attorney timely perfected an appeal, and not determining whether Johnson was prejudiced by his counsel’s negligence in not raising the multiple issues/claims Johnson directed counsel to raise.” Id.

2024And the district court “abused its discretion when it denied Johnson’s claim[s] stating that Johnson failed to specify any impeachment evidence or evidence bolstering the credibility of the defendant which could have been offered,” and “failed to allege the manner in which Trial Counsel failed to investigate or the nature of any evidence which additional investigation might have disclosed.” Id.

2024And the district court “abused its discretion when it denied Johnson’s claim stating that Johnson failed to specify the nature of any exculpatory evidence which could have been presented through a proper cross-examination or why his counsel’s cross-examination was not proper.” Id.

2023County of Lancaster v. County of Custer, supra. Johnson’s brief contains headings in the argument section of his brief which purport to assign error by the district court.

2021State v. Ferrin, 305 Neb. 762 , 942 N.W.2d 404 (2020).

2021State v. Ferrin, 305 Neb. 762 , 942 N.W.2d 404 (2020).

2021We determine that the interrogation was not - 349 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. JOHNSON in violation of Miranda safeguards, and we conclude that the district court did not err when it overruled Johnson’s motion to suppress and allowed the statements into evidence. [6,7] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), prohibits the use of statements derived during custodial interrogation unless the prosecution demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards that are effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.

2021We determine that the interrogation was not - 349 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. JOHNSON in violation of Miranda safeguards, and we conclude that the district court did not err when it overruled Johnson’s motion to suppress and allowed the statements into evidence. [6,7] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), prohibits the use of statements derived during custodial interrogation unless the prosecution demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards that are effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.

2021State v. Connelly, 307 Neb. 495 , 949 N.W.2d 519 (2020).

2021State v. Connelly, 307 Neb. 495 , 949 N.W.2d 519 (2020).

2017In doing so, the court ruled that he was not entitled to relief on his motion and was not entitled to an evi- dentiary hearing. 3 State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227 , 900 N.W.2d 8 (2017). 4 See State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208 , 854 N.W.2d 584 (2014). - 498 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. JOHNSON Cite as 298 Neb. 491 [3-6] A defendant seeking relief under the Nebraska Postconviction Act5 must show that his or her conviction was obtained in violation of his or her constitutional rights.6 An evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief is required on an

2017In doing so, the court ruled that he was not entitled to relief on his motion and was not entitled to an evi- dentiary hearing. 3 State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227 , 900 N.W.2d 8 (2017). 4 See State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208 , 854 N.W.2d 584 (2014). - 498 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. JOHNSON Cite as 298 Neb. 491 [3-6] A defendant seeking relief under the Nebraska Postconviction Act5 must show that his or her conviction was obtained in violation of his or her constitutional rights.6 An evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief is required on an

2017Constitutional R ight to Speedy Trial In regard to Johnson’s claim that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated, the court ruled that because he failed to raise it on direct appeal, it was procedurally barred. 31 State v. Sellers, 290 Neb. 18 , 858 N.W.2d 577 (2015). 32 Id. 33 Id. - 509 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. JOHNSON Cite as 298 Neb. 491 [24] Under U.S. Const. amend.

2017In doing so, the court ruled that he was not entitled to relief on his motion and was not entitled to an evi- dentiary hearing. 3 State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227 , 900 N.W.2d 8 (2017). 4 See State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208 , 854 N.W.2d 584 (2014). - 498 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. JOHNSON Cite as 298 Neb. 491 [3-6] A defendant seeking relief under the Nebraska Postconviction Act5 must show that his or her conviction was obtained in violation of his or her constitutional rights.6 An evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief is required on an

2017In doing so, the court ruled that he was not entitled to relief on his motion and was not entitled to an evi- dentiary hearing. 3 State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227 , 900 N.W.2d 8 (2017). 4 See State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208 , 854 N.W.2d 584 (2014). - 498 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. JOHNSON Cite as 298 Neb. 491 [3-6] A defendant seeking relief under the Nebraska Postconviction Act5 must show that his or her conviction was obtained in violation of his or her constitutional rights.6 An evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief is required on an

2017In doing so, the court ruled that he was not entitled to relief on his motion and was not entitled to an evi- dentiary hearing. 3 State v. Vela, 297 Neb. 227 , 900 N.W.2d 8 (2017). 4 See State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208 , 854 N.W.2d 584 (2014). - 498 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. JOHNSON Cite as 298 Neb. 491 [3-6] A defendant seeking relief under the Nebraska Postconviction Act5 must show that his or her conviction was obtained in violation of his or her constitutional rights.6 An evidentiary hearing on a motion for postconviction relief is required on an

2017Constitutional R ight to Speedy Trial In regard to Johnson’s claim that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated, the court ruled that because he failed to raise it on direct appeal, it was procedurally barred. 31 State v. Sellers, 290 Neb. 18 , 858 N.W.2d 577 (2015). 32 Id. 33 Id. - 509 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. JOHNSON Cite as 298 Neb. 491 [24] Under U.S. Const. amend.

2017Constitutional R ight to Speedy Trial In regard to Johnson’s claim that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated, the court ruled that because he failed to raise it on direct appeal, it was procedurally barred. 31 State v. Sellers, 290 Neb. 18 , 858 N.W.2d 577 (2015). 32 Id. 33 Id. - 509 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. JOHNSON Cite as 298 Neb. 491 [24] Under U.S. Const. amend.

2017Johnson timely appealed. 1 See State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 , 862 N.W.2d 757 (2015). 2 See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S. Ct. 1712 , 90 L.

2017Johnson timely appealed. 1 See State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 , 862 N.W.2d 757 (2015). 2 See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S. Ct. 1712 , 90 L.

2015The relief Johnson sought was more in the way of a declaration that at some point in Nebraska Advance Sheets STACY M. v. JASON M. 141 Cite as 290 Neb. 141 the future, after he was no longer legally detained on the California sentence, it would be illegal to detain him on the Nebraska sentences.

2015It argues that Ryan 7 See, Warnock v. Davis, 104 U.S. (14 Otto) 775, 26 L.

2015State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014). 1.

2015State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014). 1.

2015Johnson argued the court should find that the court’s delay in ruling on the motion to suppress was an inordinate and unreasonable delay and, based on the Nebraska Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Wilcox, 224 Neb. 138 , 395 N.W.2d 772 (1986), that he was entitled to discharge.

2015Johnson argued the court should find that the court’s delay in ruling on the motion to suppress was an inordinate and unreasonable delay and, based on the Nebraska Supreme Court’s ruling in State v. Wilcox, 224 Neb. 138 , 395 N.W.2d 772 (1986), that he was entitled to discharge.

1998Given that State v. Lopez, 215 Neb. 65 , 337 N.W.2d 130 (1983), holds that crimes arising out of the same set of circumstances cannot be used and State v. Ellis, 214 Neb. 172 , 333 N.W.2d 391 (1983), requires that the crimes be successive, our answer is in the negative.

1998Given that State v. Lopez, 215 Neb. 65 , 337 N.W.2d 130 (1983), holds that crimes arising out of the same set of circumstances cannot be used and State v. Ellis, 214 Neb. 172 , 333 N.W.2d 391 (1983), requires that the crimes be successive, our answer is in the negative.