material error in Nebraska

2021He also claimed that “the verdict cannot - 513 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. HILL Cite as 308 Neb. 511 be sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to the law.” Hill alleged that “the material for his defense is newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered, with reasonable diligence, prior to the time of his trial.” He further alleged that “all facts in this motion was [sic] only discovered once he was able to examine the documents which was [sic] received on March 10th 2018 long after his trial.” The remain- ing paragraphs includ

1988Finally, the State then refers to State v. Packett, 206 Neb. 548 , 294 N.W.2d 605 (1980), in which a prosecutor initiated an ex parte communication with the trial judge and complained about the latitude extended to the defendant’s lawyer on cross-examination.

1988Finally, the State then refers to State v. Packett, 206 Neb. 548 , 294 N.W.2d 605 (1980), in which a prosecutor initiated an ex parte communication with the trial judge and complained about the latitude extended to the defendant’s lawyer on cross-examination.

1988Irby v. Israel, 100 Wis. 2d 411 , 302 N.W.2d 517 (1981): “An ex parte communication, moreover, is a material error only if the adverse party is prejudiced by an inability to rebut the facts communicated and if improper influence on the decision maker appears with reasonable certainty to have resulted.” 100 Wis. 2d at 425 , 302 N.W.2d at 525 .

1988Irby v. Israel, 100 Wis. 2d 411 , 302 N.W.2d 517 (1981): “An ex parte communication, moreover, is a material error only if the adverse party is prejudiced by an inability to rebut the facts communicated and if improper influence on the decision maker appears with reasonable certainty to have resulted.” 100 Wis. 2d at 425 , 302 N.W.2d at 525 .

1981In this connection see McElhose v. Universal Surety Co., 182 Neb. 847 , 158 N.W.2d 228 (1968).

1981In this connection see McElhose v. Universal Surety Co., 182 Neb. 847 , 158 N.W.2d 228 (1968).

1974With respect to the issue of alimony, the appellant cites the cases of Peterson v. Peterson, 152 Neb. 571 , 41 N. W. 2d 847 (1950), and Pasko v. Trela, 153 Neb. 759 , 46 N. W. 2d 139 (1951), as controlling.

1974With respect to the issue of alimony, the appellant cites the cases of Peterson v. Peterson, 152 Neb. 571 , 41 N. W. 2d 847 (1950), and Pasko v. Trela, 153 Neb. 759 , 46 N. W. 2d 139 (1951), as controlling.

1974With respect to the issue of alimony, the appellant cites the cases of Peterson v. Peterson, 152 Neb. 571 , 41 N. W. 2d 847 (1950), and Pasko v. Trela, 153 Neb. 759 , 46 N. W. 2d 139 (1951), as controlling.

1974With respect to the issue of alimony, the appellant cites the cases of Peterson v. Peterson, 152 Neb. 571 , 41 N. W. 2d 847 (1950), and Pasko v. Trela, 153 Neb. 759 , 46 N. W. 2d 139 (1951), as controlling.

1968Such provision in the state statute provides in part: “Provided, that any person having direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor but no contractual relationship-, express or implied, with the contractor furnishing such bond shall have a right of action upon the bond upon giving written notice to the contractor within four months from the date on which such person did or performed the last of the labor, or furnished or supplied the last of the material for which such claim is made, stating with substantial -accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the material w

1968Such provision in the state statute provides in part: “Provided, that any person having direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor but no contractual relationship-, express or implied, with the contractor furnishing such bond shall have a right of action upon the bond upon giving written notice to the contractor within four months from the date on which such person did or performed the last of the labor, or furnished or supplied the last of the material for which such claim is made, stating with substantial -accuracy the amount claimed and the name of the party to whom the material w

1933Commercial Credit Co. v. Tarwater, 215 Ala. 123 .

1909The question of the distance, at which the witness stood, is not a material inquiry in the case; at the most it is a mere expression of opinion.” George v. State, 16 Neb. 318 , is a case wherein the defendant was charged with having committed the offense of robbery upon the person of one Louis Brown on November 19, 1883.

1908Thus, in Cornell v. People, 107 Ill. 372 , it is shown that the charter conferring the power of appointment upon the judge of the circuit court was submitted to the people of the municipality at an election and adopted by them.

1907In Tourtelotte v. Pearce, 27 Neb. 57 , it was held: “The failure to allege in the petition that the plaintiff had been in the e.rclu.üoG adverse possession of the premises for ten years, and of the court to find that fact in the decree, is not a material error after judgment, where the proof shows the possession to have been of that character.” ' - There is no error in the record, and an affirmance of ihe judgment is recommended.

1899Co., 34 Neb. 502 ; Eagle Fire Co. v. Globe Loan & Trust Co., supra.) The material inquiry then upon this branch of the case is whether the defendant elected to exercise or to waive its right to take advantage of the forfeiture.

1889St. 330; 3 Sutherland on Damages, 316, and cases cited in note; Tubbs v. Van Kleek, 12 Ill. 446 ; Coil v. Wallace, 4 Zab. [N. J.] 291;) yet the fact that such seduction resulted in pregnancy and childbirth would not necessarily become a material inquiry, except as it might incidentally arise as corroborative of the evidence offered to support the charge or cause of action alleged by the plaintiff in the suit.