locality rule in Nebraska

12 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2024 3 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Hamilton v. Baresgreen neb · 2004 · cited in 3 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019See, also, Hamilton v. Bares , 267 Neb. 816 , 678 N.W.2d 74 (2004) (comparing Bellevue, Nebraska, and Lincoln, Nebraska); Walls v. Shreck , 265 Neb. 683 , 658 N.W.2d 686 (2003) (comparing North Platte, Nebraska, and Scottsbluff, Nebraska). (b) Relevance Objection Regarding Dr. Bal's Expert Witness Fees The Banks next contend that the district court abused its discretion when it sustained Mickels' objection to testimony meant to rehabilitate Dr. Bal. 2019See, also, Hamilton v. Bares , 267 Neb. 816 , 678 N.W.2d 74 (2004) (comparing Bellevue, Nebraska, and Lincoln, Nebraska); Walls v. Shreck , 265 Neb. 683 , 658 N.W.2d 686 (2003) (comparing North Platte, Nebraska, and Scottsbluff, Nebraska). (b) Relevance Objection Regarding Dr. Bal's Expert Witness Fees The Banks next contend that the district court abused its discretion when it sustained Mickels' objection to testimony meant to rehabilitate Dr. Bal.	3	3
Kortus v. Jensengreen neb · 1976 · cited in 2 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1980–1997 2 sentences 1997In Kortus v. Jensen, 195 Neb. 261, 269 , 237 N.W.2d 845, 850 (1976), we stated that “medical standards of care and skill are becoming national, rather than local or regional.” We went on to reaffirm the locality rule, stating: In performing professional services a doctor who is a specialist must use the skill and knowledge ordinarily possessed and used under like circumstances by members of his specialty in good standing in his or similar localities. . . . 1997In Kortus v. Jensen, 195 Neb. 261, 269 , 237 N.W.2d 845, 850 (1976), we stated that “medical standards of care and skill are becoming national, rather than local or regional.” We went on to reaffirm the locality rule, stating: In performing professional services a doctor who is a specialist must use the skill and knowledge ordinarily possessed and used under like circumstances by members of his specialty in good standing in his or similar localities. . . .	2	2
Gambill v. Stroudgreen ark · 1976 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023We cannot eliminate the locality rule explicitly 31 Gambill v. Stroud, 258 Ark. 766, 770 , 531 S.W.2d 945, 948 (1976). 32 White, supra note 25 . 33 Id. at 799 , 568 S.W.2d at 221 . 34 See, Robbins, supra note 25 ; Priest, supra note 25 ; White, supra note 25 ; Estate of Hagedorn, supra note 25 ; Chapel, supra note 25 ; Purvis, supra note 25 . 35 See, Green, supra note 11; Gourley, supra note 11 ; Capps, supra note 11 . - 157 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports CARSON V. 2023We cannot eliminate the locality rule explicitly 31 Gambill v. Stroud, 258 Ark. 766, 770 , 531 S.W.2d 945, 948 (1976). 32 White, supra note 25 . 33 Id. at 799 , 568 S.W.2d at 221 . 34 See, Robbins, supra note 25 ; Priest, supra note 25 ; White, supra note 25 ; Estate of Hagedorn, supra note 25 ; Chapel, supra note 25 ; Purvis, supra note 25 . 35 See, Green, supra note 11; Gourley, supra note 11 ; Capps, supra note 11 . - 157 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports CARSON V.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Walls v. Shreck green neb · 2003 2 sentences 2004More recently, this court considered the locality standard in Walls v. Shreck, 265 Neb. 683 , 658 N.W.2d 686 (2003). 2004More recently, this court considered the locality standard in Walls v. Shreck, 265 Neb. 683 , 658 N.W.2d 686 (2003).	4	2004–2019
Carson v. Steinke green neb · 2023 2 sentences 2024Konsul claims that the district court erred when it sustained Asensio’s foundation objection and ruled that, based on the locality rule as set forth in Carson v. Steinke, 314 Neb. 140 , 989 N.W.2d 401 (2023), Dreyfuss could not testify regarding the applicable standard of care in Omaha. 2024Konsul claims that the district court erred when it sustained Asensio’s foundation objection and ruled that, based on the locality rule as set forth in Carson v. Steinke, 314 Neb. 140 , 989 N.W.2d 401 (2023), Dreyfuss could not testify regarding the applicable standard of care in Omaha.	2	2023–2024
Wentling v. Jenny green neb · 1980 2 sentences 1997In Wentling v. Jenny, 206 Neb. 335 , 293 N.W.2d 76 (1980), however, we suggested that the locality rule is not applicable in cases where the standard of care for a particular procedure has become nationalized. 1997In Wentling v. Jenny, 206 Neb. 335 , 293 N.W.2d 76 (1980), however, we suggested that the locality rule is not applicable in cases where the standard of care for a particular procedure has become nationalized.	2	1997–1997
Chapel v. Allison green mont · 1990 2 sentences 2023Cir. 1977); Priest v. Lindig, 583 P.2d 173 (Alaska 1978); White v. Mitchell, 263 Ark. 787 , 568 S.W.2d 216 (1978); Estate of Hagedorn, 690 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 2004); Chapel v. Allison, 241 Mont. 83 , 785 P.2d 204 (1990); Purvis v. Moses H. 2023Cir. 1977); Priest v. Lindig, 583 P.2d 173 (Alaska 1978); White v. Mitchell, 263 Ark. 787 , 568 S.W.2d 216 (1978); Estate of Hagedorn, 690 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 2004); Chapel v. Allison, 241 Mont. 83 , 785 P.2d 204 (1990); Purvis v. Moses H.	1	2023–2023
White v. Mitchell green ark · 1978 2 sentences 2023Cir. 1977); Priest v. Lindig, 583 P.2d 173 (Alaska 1978); White v. Mitchell, 263 Ark. 787 , 568 S.W.2d 216 (1978); Estate of Hagedorn, 690 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 2004); Chapel v. Allison, 241 Mont. 83 , 785 P.2d 204 (1990); Purvis v. Moses H. 2023We cannot eliminate the locality rule explicitly 31 Gambill v. Stroud, 258 Ark. 766, 770 , 531 S.W.2d 945, 948 (1976). 32 White, supra note 25 . 33 Id. at 799 , 568 S.W.2d at 221 . 34 See, Robbins, supra note 25 ; Priest, supra note 25 ; White, supra note 25 ; Estate of Hagedorn, supra note 25 ; Chapel, supra note 25 ; Purvis, supra note 25 . 35 See, Green, supra note 11; Gourley, supra note 11 ; Capps, supra note 11 . - 157 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports CARSON V.	1	2023–2023
Robbins v. Footer green cadc · 1977 2 sentences 2023Instead, we agree with those jurisdictions that con- sider medically relevant factors, including available facilities, personnel, equipment, and practices, to determine whether two communities are similar under their medical malprac- tice statutes. 25 For example, the Iowa Supreme Court, in Estate of Hagedorn, 26 recognized that “the availability of medical knowl- edge has become more universal.” Nevertheless, it upheld its statutory locality rule, explaining that “the locality rule has retained validity in its other aspects,” including the “facili- ties, personnel, services, and equipment rea 2023We cannot eliminate the locality rule explicitly 31 Gambill v. Stroud, 258 Ark. 766, 770 , 531 S.W.2d 945, 948 (1976). 32 White, supra note 25 . 33 Id. at 799 , 568 S.W.2d at 221 . 34 See, Robbins, supra note 25 ; Priest, supra note 25 ; White, supra note 25 ; Estate of Hagedorn, supra note 25 ; Chapel, supra note 25 ; Purvis, supra note 25 . 35 See, Green, supra note 11; Gourley, supra note 11 ; Capps, supra note 11 . - 157 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports CARSON V.	1	2023–2023
Priest v. Lindig green alaska · 1978 2 sentences 2023Cir. 1977); Priest v. Lindig, 583 P.2d 173 (Alaska 1978); White v. Mitchell, 263 Ark. 787 , 568 S.W.2d 216 (1978); Estate of Hagedorn, 690 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 2004); Chapel v. Allison, 241 Mont. 83 , 785 P.2d 204 (1990); Purvis v. Moses H. 2023We cannot eliminate the locality rule explicitly 31 Gambill v. Stroud, 258 Ark. 766, 770 , 531 S.W.2d 945, 948 (1976). 32 White, supra note 25 . 33 Id. at 799 , 568 S.W.2d at 221 . 34 See, Robbins, supra note 25 ; Priest, supra note 25 ; White, supra note 25 ; Estate of Hagedorn, supra note 25 ; Chapel, supra note 25 ; Purvis, supra note 25 . 35 See, Green, supra note 11; Gourley, supra note 11 ; Capps, supra note 11 . - 157 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports CARSON V.	1	2023–2023
Estate of Hagedorn v. Peterson green iowa · 2004 2 sentences 2023Cir. 1977); Priest v. Lindig, 583 P.2d 173 (Alaska 1978); White v. Mitchell, 263 Ark. 787 , 568 S.W.2d 216 (1978); Estate of Hagedorn, 690 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 2004); Chapel v. Allison, 241 Mont. 83 , 785 P.2d 204 (1990); Purvis v. Moses H. 2023We cannot eliminate the locality rule explicitly 31 Gambill v. Stroud, 258 Ark. 766, 770 , 531 S.W.2d 945, 948 (1976). 32 White, supra note 25 . 33 Id. at 799 , 568 S.W.2d at 221 . 34 See, Robbins, supra note 25 ; Priest, supra note 25 ; White, supra note 25 ; Estate of Hagedorn, supra note 25 ; Chapel, supra note 25 ; Purvis, supra note 25 . 35 See, Green, supra note 11; Gourley, supra note 11 ; Capps, supra note 11 . - 157 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports CARSON V.	1	2023–2023
Whittle v. State neutral neb · 2021 1 sentence 2021Under § 38-179(13), unprofessional conduct includes “failure to comply with any federal, state, or municipal . . . regulation that pertains to the applicable profession.” In this regard, we note the regulatory similarities between “the normal standard of care in the State of Nebraska” described in § 010.02(32) and the locality rule adopted by the Legislature in the Nebraska Hospital-Medical Liability - 721 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports WHITTLE v. STATE Cite as 309 Neb. 695 Act for medical-negligence actions involving applicable health care providers.	1	2021–2021
Capps v. Manhart green neb · 1990 2 sentences 1997The Robinsons cite Capps v. Manhart, 236 Neb. 16 , 458 N.W.2d 742 (1990), for the proposition that a medical expert from one community is competent to testify as an expert witness in a medical negligence case as to the standard of care or skill required in another community if the expert has knowledge of or familiarity with the practice and standard of the locality in question or of a similar or like community. 1997The Robinsons cite Capps v. Manhart, 236 Neb. 16 , 458 N.W.2d 742 (1990), for the proposition that a medical expert from one community is competent to testify as an expert witness in a medical negligence case as to the standard of care or skill required in another community if the expert has knowledge of or familiarity with the practice and standard of the locality in question or of a similar or like community.	1	1997–1997
Kenneth Hawkman v. Robert Parratt, Warden, Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex green ca8 · 1981 1 sentence 1989In further support of his contention, the defendant cites Hawkman v. Parratt, 661 F.2d 1161 (8th Cir. 1981), in which the *361 court rejected a locality rule in sixth amendment cases.	1	1989–1989

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-2810 (6) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-2816 (5) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-2801 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1122 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TN 43 (1986–2026) LA 39 (1978–2017) IL 18 (1976–2002) NY 15 (1923–2025) TX 14 (1979–2015) AR 12 (1976–2026) NE 12 (1980–2024) MS 12 (1982–1992) MI 10 (1976–2019) WV 7 (1982–2020) WI 6 (1973–1996) MD 5 (1975–2025) OK 5 (1982–1995) IN 5 (1987–2014) DC 5 (1967–1996) AL 4 (1980–1993) WY 4 (1989–2002) PA 4 (1971–2015) NV 3 (1979–1993) CA 3 (1980–2023) GA 3 (1983–1989) MT 3 (1985–1993) DE 3 (1982–2025) FL 3 (1961–1997) SC 3 (1984–2004) RI 3 (1992–2015) WA 3 (1972–2007) CO 3 (1900–1993) SD 2 (1988–2014) IA 2 (1976–2004) OH 2 (1975–1986) NM 2 (1977–1994) KS 2 (1968–2013) MO 2 (1980–2007) UT 2 (1905–1981) NC 2 (1974–2013)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check