Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2026 5 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. Duncangreen2 sentences2016Later cases deemed this “the ‘Randolph doctrine.’” See State v. Duncan, 291 Neb. 1003, 1007 , 870 N.W.2d 422 , 425 (2015). 2015Laws, L.B. 998, § 13. 5 Id., § 20. 6 Legislative Journal, 103d Leg., 2d Sess. 1490 (Apr. 9, 2014). - 1007 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 291 Nebraska R eports STATE v. DUNCAN Cite as 291 Neb. 1003 [2,3] Generally, if the Legislature amends a criminal statute by mitigating the punishment after the commission of a pro- hibited act but before final judgment, the punishment is that provided by the amendatory act unless the Legislature specifi- cally provided otherwise.7 We sometimes refer to this rule as the “Randolph doctrine,” after its progenitor.8 If a defendant appeals his or her sentence, then t | 5 | 7 |
State v. Randolphgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Randolph, 186 Neb. 297 , 183 N.W.2d 225 (1971). [14-16] Under the Randolph doctrine, when the Legislature amends a criminal statute by mitigating the punishment after the commission of a prohibited act but before final judg- ment, the punishment is that provided by the amendatory act unless the Legislature specifically provided otherwise. 2024See State v. Randolph, 186 Neb. 297 , 183 N.W.2d 225 (1971). [14-16] Under the Randolph doctrine, when the Legislature amends a criminal statute by mitigating the punishment after the commission of a prohibited act but before final judg- ment, the punishment is that provided by the amendatory act unless the Legislature specifically provided otherwise. | 3 | 5 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1999See State v. Harris, 7 Neb. 1999See State v. Harris, 7 Neb. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Karelgreen2 sentences1999See, e.g., State v. Karel, 204 Neb. 573 , 284 N.W.2d 12 (1979) (holding that defendant’s right to jury trial was not defeated by substantive statutory changes improperly made by Revisor of Statutes). 1999See, e.g., State v. Karel, 204 Neb. 573 , 284 N.W.2d 12 (1979) (holding that defendant’s right to jury trial was not defeated by substantive statutory changes improperly made by Revisor of Statutes). | 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. Chacon
green
2 sentences2026State v. Chacon, 296 Neb. 203 , 894 N.W.2d 238 (2017). 2026State v. Chacon, 296 Neb. 203 , 894 N.W.2d 238 (2017). | 4 | 2017–2026 |
State v. Guardiola
green
2 sentences2026State v. Guardiola, 32 Neb. 2026State v. Guardiola, 32 Neb. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Artis
green
2 sentences2017Accordingly, Artis’ sentence appears to comply with L.B. 1094 in this respect. (c) Postrelease Supervision The State also suggests that Artis’ sentence may constitute plain error pursuant to the Randolph doctrine, because the ver- sion of § 29-2204.02 as amended by L.B. 1094 requires that Artis receive no period of postrelease supervision.26 Although the district court did not order postrelease supervision, the State is concerned that under the statutory scheme in effect at the time of Artis’ sentencing, a period of 9 months’ postrelease supervision could be imputed to him. 24 Committee Statem 2017Accordingly, Artis’ sentence appears to comply with L.B. 1094 in this respect. (c) Postrelease Supervision The State also suggests that Artis’ sentence may constitute plain error pursuant to the Randolph doctrine, because the ver- sion of § 29-2204.02 as amended by L.B. 1094 requires that Artis receive no period of postrelease supervision.26 Although the district court did not order postrelease supervision, the State is concerned that under the statutory scheme in effect at the time of Artis’ sentencing, a period of 9 months’ postrelease supervision could be imputed to him. 24 Committee Statem | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Aguallo
green
1 sentence2016In State v. Aguallo, 294 Neb. 177 , ___ N.W.2d ___ (2016), the Nebraska Supreme Court recently addressed whether the reduced penalties for Class IIIA felonies contained in L.B. 605 applied to a sexual assault committed before August 30, 2015. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Crisp
green
2 sentences1982Nor is this a case such as presented in State v. Crisp, 195 Neb. 833 , 241 N.W.2d 129 (1976), wherein we refused to apply the Randolph doctrine. 1982Nor is this a case such as presented in State v. Crisp, 195 Neb. 833 , 241 N.W.2d 129 (1976), wherein we refused to apply the Randolph doctrine. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.