concluded defense in Nebraska

1984In Oft v. Dornacker, 131 Neb. 644 , 269 N.W. 418 , and again in Mettlen v. Sandoz, 131 Neb. 625 , 269 N.W. 98 , this court concluded that the defense of recoupment or reduction ofplaintiff’s claim must arise out of the same transaction as plaintiff’s claim, and survives as long as plaintiff’s cause of action exists, even if affirmative legal action upon the subject of recoupment is barred by the statute of limitations.

1984In Oft v. Dornacker, 131 Neb. 644 , 269 N.W. 418 , and again in Mettlen v. Sandoz, 131 Neb. 625 , 269 N.W. 98 , this court concluded that the defense of recoupment or reduction ofplaintiff’s claim must arise out of the same transaction as plaintiff’s claim, and survives as long as plaintiff’s cause of action exists, even if affirmative legal action upon the subject of recoupment is barred by the statute of limitations.

1984In Oft v. Dornacker, 131 Neb. 644 , 269 N.W. 418 , and again in Mettlen v. Sandoz, 131 Neb. 625 , 269 N.W. 98 , this court concluded that the defense of recoupment or reduction ofplaintiff’s claim must arise out of the same transaction as plaintiff’s claim, and survives as long as plaintiff’s cause of action exists, even if affirmative legal action upon the subject of recoupment is barred by the statute of limitations.

1984In Oft v. Dornacker, 131 Neb. 644 , 269 N.W. 418 , and again in Mettlen v. Sandoz, 131 Neb. 625 , 269 N.W. 98 , this court concluded that the defense of recoupment or reduction ofplaintiff’s claim must arise out of the same transaction as plaintiff’s claim, and survives as long as plaintiff’s cause of action exists, even if affirmative legal action upon the subject of recoupment is barred by the statute of limitations.

2022Cite as 30 Neb.

2022CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY Cite as 312 Neb. 248 we can get something in place that can allow us all to breathe, then we can go back in and clean things up quite a bit.” The court concluded the hearing by taking the matter under advisement.

2022CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY Cite as 312 Neb. 248 The court concluded the hearing without providing a defini- tive answer on whether it still believed issues remained before it or whether its denial of Students’ request for a temporary injunction was a final order.

2017The court concluded that this claim did not warrant an evidentiary hearing. - 652 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BARRERA-GARRIDO Cite as 296 Neb. 647 Barrera-Garrido appeals the district court’s order which overruled his motion for postconviction relief without conduct- ing an evidentiary hearing.

2015Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. ARMSTRONG 1011 Cite as 290 Neb. 991 The court concluded that defense counsel’s representation of Armstrong was deficient.

2014Relying on Gibbs Cattle Co. v. Bixler, 285 Neb. 952 , 831 N.W.2d 696 (2013), the court determined that all pro- visions of the dormant mineral statutes should be construed in favor of the mineral owner.

2014Relying on Gibbs Cattle Co. v. Bixler, 285 Neb. 952 , 831 N.W.2d 696 (2013), the court determined that all pro- visions of the dormant mineral statutes should be construed in favor of the mineral owner.

2009The Court concluded that the claim at issue in Marshall did not involve the administration of an estate, the probate of a will, or any other purely probate matter, but, instead, that the claim alleged "a widely recognized tort" and that "[t]rial courts, both federal and state, often address conduct of the kind" alleged. 547 U.S. at 312 , 126 S.Ct. 1735 .

2009The Court concluded that the claim at issue in Marshall did not involve the administration of an estate, the probate of a will, or any other purely probate matter, but, instead, that the claim alleged "a widely recognized tort" and that "[t]rial courts, both federal and state, often address conduct of the kind" alleged. 547 U.S. at 312 , 126 S.Ct. 1735 .

2008The court concluded that the test to determine whether an omission on a sworn report is a jurisdictional defect rather than a technical one "should be whether, notwithstanding the omission, the sworn report conveys the information required by the applicable statute." Id. at 171 , 699 N.W.2d at 38 .

2008The court concluded that the test to determine whether an omission on a sworn report is a jurisdictional defect rather than a technical one "should be whether, notwithstanding the omission, the sworn report conveys the information required by the applicable statute." Id. at 171 , 699 N.W.2d at 38 .

2006The court concluded that this principle was applicable under the facts of the case, finding, “On this record, we see no reason to suppose that [if] the juvenile court had been asked to find whether ‘active efforts’ had been made, rather than ‘reasonable efforts,’ it would have made a different finding.” Id. at 1165, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 736-37 .

2003The decision in Cannon v. Mullin, 297 F.3d 989 (10th Cir. 2002), further supports the view that Ring does not fall within the second Teague exception.

1998This court concluded that the claim in Myszkowski was compensable because "[the] claimant did not leave his line of duty under his employment for purposes of his own." 155 Neb. at 720 , 53 N.W.2d at 208 .

1998This court concluded that the claim in Myszkowski was compensable because "[the] claimant did not leave his line of duty under his employment for purposes of his own." 155 Neb. at 720 , 53 N.W.2d at 208 .