13 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Monie v. State Personnel Boardgreen2 sentences1991While there is a conflict between what Hansen testified to at the hearing and what he is alleged to have admitted to the sergeant on the day of the incident, we “will consider and may give weight to the fact that the agency or hearing officer observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.” Monie v. State Personnel Board, 229 Neb. 27, 30 , 424 N.W.2d 874, 877 (1988). 1991While there is a conflict between what Hansen testified to at the hearing and what he is alleged to have admitted to the sergeant on the day of the incident, we “will consider and may give weight to the fact that the agency or hearing officer observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.” Monie v. State Personnel Board, 229 Neb. 27, 30 , 424 N.W.2d 874, 877 (1988). | 2 | 2 |
Trackwell v. Nebraska Department of Administrative Servicesgreen2 sentences2004Servs., 8 Neb.App. 233, 240 [, 591 N.W.2d 95, 99 ] (1999), quoting Slack Nsg. 2004Servs., 8 Neb.App. 233, 240 [, 591 N.W.2d 95, 99 ] (1999), quoting Slack Nsg. | 1 | 1 |
Jessie CALVIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellantgreen1 sentence1999In Calvin v. Chater, 73 F.3d 87, 91 (6th Cir. 1996), the Sixth Circuit addressed an agency rule which permitted a witness to be subpoenaed for cross-examination if the party applying for the subpoena provided the agency a timely written explanation of why the subpoena was reasonably necessary for “full presentation of the case.” The circuit court held that because Calvin’s attorney failed to explain why the subpoena was necessary to his case, because the proposed witness’ findings did not contradict other evidence, and because there was no suggestion of bias on the part of the judge, the admin | 1 | 1 |
Department of Health v. Grand Island Health Care, Inc.green2 sentences1995See, Department of Health v. Grand Island Health Care, 223 Neb. 587 , 391 N.W.2d 582 (1986); Person, supra (defining de novo review). 1995See, Department of Health v. Grand Island Health Care, 223 Neb. 587 , 391 N.W.2d 582 (1986); Person, supra (defining de novo review). | 1 | 1 |
Kemper v. STATE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICESgreen2 sentences1991We are required to make “independent findings of fact without reference to those made by the agency whose action is being reviewed ... and reach our decision independent of all dispositions that have gone before.” Monie, supra. As we noted in a case which involved the termination of an employee at another DCS facility, “[t]he appropriate discipline was a matter within the discretion of the director.” Kemper v. State, 230 Neb. 740, 743 , 433 N.W.2d 497, 499 (1988). 1991We are required to make “independent findings of fact without reference to those made by the agency whose action is being reviewed ... and reach our decision independent of all dispositions that have gone before.” Monie, supra. As we noted in a case which involved the termination of an employee at another DCS facility, “[t]he appropriate discipline was a matter within the discretion of the director.” Kemper v. State, 230 Neb. 740, 743 , 433 N.W.2d 497, 499 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Langvardt v. Horton
green
2 sentences2013The district court went on to state that in a true de novo review, the district court’s decision is to be made independently of the agency’s prior disposition and the court is not required to give -4- deference to the findings of fact and the decision of the agency hearing officer or administrative law judge, citing Langvardt v. Horton, 254 Neb. 878 , 581 N.W.2d 60 (1998). 2013The district court went on to state that in a true de novo review, the district court’s decision is to be made independently of the agency’s prior disposition and the court is not required to give -4- deference to the findings of fact and the decision of the agency hearing officer or administrative law judge, citing Langvardt v. Horton, 254 Neb. 878 , 581 N.W.2d 60 (1998). | 2 | 2008–2013 |
Kerr v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska
green
1 sentence2016App. 907 , 739 N.W.2d 224 (2007), it was noted that no law required that the question of whether a student should remain in college be determined by an agency or in an agency hearing and that therefore the decision to dismiss the student was not made in a “contested case” as defined in the APA. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Richardson v. BOARD OF ED. OF SCH. DIST.
green
2 sentences2013Richardson v. Board of Education, 206 Neb. 18 , 290 N.W.2d 803 (1980). 2013Richardson v. Board of Education, 206 Neb. 18 , 290 N.W.2d 803 (1980). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Biscoe v. Tanaka
green
2 sentences1999The Supreme Court of Hawaii in Biscoe v. Tanaka, 76 Haw. 380 , 878 P.2d 719 (1994), held that the issuance of subpoenas in a driver’s license revocation proceeding, other than law enforcement officials required by statute to be subpoenaed, was left to the discretion of the director of the administrative driver’s license revocation office. 1999The Supreme Court of Hawaii in Biscoe v. Tanaka, 76 Haw. 380 , 878 P.2d 719 (1994), held that the issuance of subpoenas in a driver’s license revocation proceeding, other than law enforcement officials required by statute to be subpoenaed, was left to the discretion of the director of the administrative driver’s license revocation office. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Slack Nursing Home, Inc. v. Department of Social Services
green
1 sentence1998Id. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Durousseau v. Nebraska State Racing Commission
green
2 sentences1998Ventura v. State, 246 Neb. 116 , 517 N.W.2d 368 (1994); Durousseau v. Nebraska State Racing Commission, 194 Neb. 288 , 231 N.W.2d 566 (1975)). 1998Ventura v. State, 246 Neb. 116 , 517 N.W.2d 368 (1994); Durousseau v. Nebraska State Racing Commission, 194 Neb. 288 , 231 N.W.2d 566 (1975)). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Ventura v. State of Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission
green
2 sentences1998Ventura v. State, 246 Neb. 116 , 517 N.W.2d 368 (1994); Durousseau v. Nebraska State Racing Commission, 194 Neb. 288 , 231 N.W.2d 566 (1975)). 1998Ventura v. State, 246 Neb. 116 , 517 N.W.2d 368 (1994); Durousseau v. Nebraska State Racing Commission, 194 Neb. 288 , 231 N.W.2d 566 (1975)). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Dieter v. STATE, DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES
green
2 sentences1988Dieter v. State, 228 Neb. 368 , 422 N.W.2d 560 (1988). 1988Dieter v. State, 228 Neb. 368 , 422 N.W.2d 560 (1988). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
City of Lincoln v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission
neutral
2 sentences1984J K & J, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 194 Neb. 413 , 231 N.W.2d 694 (1975); City of Lincoln v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 181 Neb. 277 , 147 N.W.2d 803 (1967). 1984J K & J, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 194 Neb. 413 , 231 N.W.2d 694 (1975); City of Lincoln v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 181 Neb. 277 , 147 N.W.2d 803 (1967). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
J K & J, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission
green
2 sentences1984J K & J, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 194 Neb. 413 , 231 N.W.2d 694 (1975); City of Lincoln v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 181 Neb. 277 , 147 N.W.2d 803 (1967). 1984J K & J, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 194 Neb. 413 , 231 N.W.2d 694 (1975); City of Lincoln v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission, 181 Neb. 277 , 147 N.W.2d 803 (1967). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.