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.
12 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gracey v. Zwonechekgreen2 sentences2006Supp. 2002), which previously required that an ALR hearing “shall be conducted in the county in which the arrest occurred or in any other county agreed to by the parties.” In Gracey v. Zwonechek, 263 Neb. 796, 800 , 643 N.W.2d 381, 385 (2002), the Nebraska Supreme Court held that “for purposes of § 60-6,205(6)(a), the hearing is held at the location of the hearing officer.” Thus, in this case, the hearing was held in Lincoln because that was the location of the hearing officer. 2006Supp. 2002), which previously required that an ALR hearing “shall be conducted in the county in which the arrest occurred or in any other county agreed to by the parties.” In Gracey v. Zwonechek, 263 Neb. 796, 800 , 643 N.W.2d 381, 385 (2002), the Nebraska Supreme Court held that “for purposes of § 60-6,205(6)(a), the hearing is held at the location of the hearing officer.” Thus, in this case, the hearing was held in Lincoln because that was the location of the hearing officer. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Younggreen2 sentences2006We stated that granting the defendant’s plea for preclusion “would violate not only our own precedent of collateral estoppel, but also sound policy *410 reasons for leaving a degree of separation between the civil ALR hearing and criminal DUI prosecutions.” Id. at 544 , 544 N.W.2d at 812 . 2006We stated that granting the defendant’s plea for preclusion “would violate not only our own precedent of collateral estoppel, but also sound policy *410 reasons for leaving a degree of separation between the civil ALR hearing and criminal DUI prosecutions.” Id. at 544 , 544 N.W.2d at 812 . | 1 | 2 |
In Re Interest of Brandy M.green2 sentences2006In addition, the Randall court relied on In re Interest of Brandy M. et al., 250 Neb. 510 , 550 N.W.2d 17 (1996), in which the Nebraska Supreme Court held that a legislative enactment providing that an act be accomplished within a specified time period, with no sanction for failure to comply with that mandate, is directory. 2006In addition, the Randall court relied on In re Interest of Brandy M. et al., 250 Neb. 510 , 550 N.W.2d 17 (1996), in which the Nebraska Supreme Court held that a legislative enactment providing that an act be accomplished within a specified time period, with no sanction for failure to comply with that mandate, is directory. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bishopgreen2 sentences1996See State v. Bishop, 113 N.M. 732 , 832 P.2d 793 (N.M. 1996See State v. Bishop, 113 N.M. 732 , 832 P.2d 793 (N.M. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Higagreen2 sentences1996See State v. Higa, 79 Haw. 1 , 897 P.2d 928 (1995). 1996See State v. Higa, 79 Haw. 1 , 897 P.2d 928 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nelson v. Lahm
green
2 sentences2024Nelson v. Lahm, 32 Neb. 2024Nelson v. Lahm, 32 Neb. | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Randall v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
2 sentences2007See, Searcey, supra; Randall v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 10 Neb. 2007See, Searcey, supra; Randall v. Department of Motor Vehicles, 10 Neb. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Schmidt Ex Rel. Schmidt v. State
green
2 sentences2007The Department was required to conform to its own rules and regulations in effect at the time of Robbins’ hearing, see Schmidt v. State, 255 Neb. 551 , 586 N.W.2d 148 (1998), and the Department was therefore required under 247 Neb. 2007The Department was required to conform to its own rules and regulations in effect at the time of Robbins’ hearing, see Schmidt v. State, 255 Neb. 551 , 586 N.W.2d 148 (1998), and the Department was therefore required under 247 Neb. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Chase v. Neth
green
2 sentences2006The Nebraska Supreme Court in Chase v. Neth, 269 Neb. 882 , 697 N.W.2d 675 (2005), addressed the same issue that Forgey presents. 2006The Nebraska Supreme Court in Chase v. Neth, 269 Neb. 882 , 697 N.W.2d 675 (2005), addressed the same issue that Forgey presents. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Hass v. Neth
green
2 sentences2005Id.; Hass v. Neth, 265 Neb. 321 , 657 N.W.2d 11 (2003). 2005Id.; Hass v. Neth, 265 Neb. 321 , 657 N.W.2d 11 (2003). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Morrissey v. Department of Motor Vehicles
green
1 sentence2005However, “[t]he rule presupposes a proper report, that is, a sworn report which comports with statutes and the relevant administrative rules and regulations.” Id. at 459 , 647 N.W.2d at 649 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2003The ALR hearing is sufficiently meaningful, pursuant to the balancing test of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. 2003The ALR hearing is sufficiently meaningful, pursuant to the balancing test of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S. Ct. 893 , 47 L. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. Halper
red
2 sentences1996This argument stems from the question of whether a sanction such as ALR is remedial or punitive in purpose, raised by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 , 109 S. Ct. 1892 , 104 L. 1996This argument stems from the question of whether a sanction such as ALR is remedial or punitive in purpose, raised by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 , 109 S. Ct. 1892 , 104 L. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.