16 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tweedygreen2 sentences1995A voluntary and intelligent waiver of these rights must affirmatively appear from the record. 209 Neb. at 654-55 , 309 N.W.2d at 98 . 1995A voluntary and intelligent waiver of these rights must affirmatively appear from the record. 209 Neb. at 654-55 , 309 N.W.2d at 98 . | 2 | 6 |
State v. Mindrupgreen2 sentences1986See, also, State v. Mindrup, 221 Neb. 773 , 380 N.W.2d 637 (1986). 1986See, also, State v. Mindrup, 221 Neb. 773 , 380 N.W.2d 637 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mead
green
2 sentences2026Id. 2023MEAD Cite as 313 Neb. 892 he or she is charged. 3 A voluntary and intelligent waiver of the above rights must affirmatively appear from the face of the record. 4 The record shows that the district court complied with most, but not all, of this dictate. | 6 | 2023–2026 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1984A checklist or other docket entry which is sufficiently complete to comply with the requirements of State v. Tweedy, 209 Neb. 649, 309 N.W.2d 94 (1981), State v. Smith, 213 Neb. 446 , 329 N.W.2d 564 (1983), and the requirements previously set out in this opinion can establish a valid waiver. 1983In State v. Smith, ante p. 446, 329 N.W.2d 564 (1983), we held that the record of a conviction used for enhancement purposes in a prosecution for third offense driving while intoxicated must show on its face a voluntary and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel or that the defendant was represented by counsel. | 2 | 1983–1984 |
State v. Irish
green
2 sentences1995The court addressed those concerns in the definitive decision State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 814 , 394 N.W.2d 879 (1986). 1995The court addressed those concerns in the definitive decision State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 814 , 394 N.W.2d 879 (1986). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Predmore
green
2 sentences1986In State v. Predmore, 220 Neb. 336 , 370 N.W.2d 99 (1985), we held the record must affirmatively show that the trial court . *381 personally examined the defendant to ensure that he knows and understands his rights and is making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of them. 1986In State v. Predmore, 220 Neb. 336 , 370 N.W.2d 99 (1985), we held the record must affirmatively show that the trial court . *381 personally examined the defendant to ensure that he knows and understands his rights and is making a voluntary and intelligent waiver of them. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Ziemba
green
1 sentence1984Further, in State v. Ziemba, supra, we made clear that a checklist may properly constitute a part of the record and can serve to affirmatively establish a voluntary and intelligent waiver of rights and, at 628, 346 N.W.2d at 218 , that a verbatim transcript of the rendition of a guilty plea is not constitutionally required, nor does absence of such a transcript require a finding that the plea was invalid. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Baldasar v. Illinois
red
2 sentences1983A voluntary and intelligent waiver of these rights must affirmatively appear from the record.” (Emphasis supplied.) By per curiam opinion in Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222 , 100 S. Ct. 1585 , 64 L. 1983A voluntary and intelligent waiver of these rights must affirmatively appear from the record.” (Emphasis supplied.) By per curiam opinion in Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222 , 100 S. Ct. 1585 , 64 L. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Jessen v. Blackard
green
2 sentences1976Jur. 2d, Estoppel and Waiver, § 158, P. 842; Jessen v. Blackard, 159 Neb. 103 , 65 N. W. 2d 345 .” (Emphasis supplied.) The Garden case does not control here for three reasons: (1) This is an appeal from a summary judgment where the limited issue is whether or not there is a genuine issue of fact remaining for trial; (2) there are different and broader material fact questions, both before and after the sale, relating to the ultimate fact of a voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known existing legal right; and (3) there are other issues and material fact questions prese 1976Jur. 2d, Estoppel and Waiver, § 158, P. 842; Jessen v. Blackard, 159 Neb. 103 , 65 N. W. 2d 345 .” (Emphasis supplied.) The Garden case does not control here for three reasons: (1) This is an appeal from a summary judgment where the limited issue is whether or not there is a genuine issue of fact remaining for trial; (2) there are different and broader material fact questions, both before and after the sale, relating to the ultimate fact of a voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known existing legal right; and (3) there are other issues and material fact questions prese | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.