12 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bittner v. Millergreen2 sentences1993Bittner v. Miller, 226 Neb. 206 , 410 N.W.2d 478 (1987); Schroll v. Fulton, 213 Neb. 310 , 328 N.W.2d 780 (1983); Regier v. Nebraska P. P. Dist., 189 Neb. 56 , 199 N.W.2d 742 (1972). 1993Bittner v. Miller, 226 Neb. 206 , 410 N.W.2d 478 (1987); Schroll v. Fulton, 213 Neb. 310 , 328 N.W.2d 780 (1983); Regier v. Nebraska P. P. Dist., 189 Neb. 56 , 199 N.W.2d 742 (1972). | 1 | 3 |
Schroll v. Fultongreen2 sentences1993Bittner v. Miller, 226 Neb. 206 , 410 N.W.2d 478 (1987); Schroll v. Fulton, 213 Neb. 310 , 328 N.W.2d 780 (1983); Regier v. Nebraska P. P. Dist., 189 Neb. 56 , 199 N.W.2d 742 (1972). 1993Bittner v. Miller, 226 Neb. 206 , 410 N.W.2d 478 (1987); Schroll v. Fulton, 213 Neb. 310 , 328 N.W.2d 780 (1983); Regier v. Nebraska P. P. Dist., 189 Neb. 56 , 199 N.W.2d 742 (1972). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Myersgreen2 sentences2017Huff relied, in part, on State v. Myers,5 in which we held that a party who fails to challenge a juror for cause waives any objection to the juror’s selection and that if grounds for a challenge for cause arise out of matters occurring after the jury is sworn, “it is the duty of the court to hear evi- dence and examine the jurors and determine whether any juror might be subject to disqualification for cause.” The Court of Appeals rejected Huff’s arguments, reason- ing that because § 29-2004(2) applied, rather than § 29-2006, “the State’s objection to M.F. as a juror was not waived and the duty 2017Huff relied, in part, on State v. Myers,5 in which we held that a party who fails to challenge a juror for cause waives any objection to the juror’s selection and that if grounds for a challenge for cause arise out of matters occurring after the jury is sworn, “it is the duty of the court to hear evi- dence and examine the jurors and determine whether any juror might be subject to disqualification for cause.” The Court of Appeals rejected Huff’s arguments, reason- ing that because § 29-2004(2) applied, rather than § 29-2006, “the State’s objection to M.F. as a juror was not waived and the duty | 1 | 1 |
Sayer Acres, Inc. v. Middle Republican Natural Resources Districtgreen2 sentences1993He then exercised all three of his peremptory challenges so as to strike Pirrone and two other venirepersons; however, Dudley and Brannen were seated as jurors. (a) Passing Venire Panel for Cause Although we, in Sayer Acres, Inc. v. Middle Republican Nat. *632 Resources Dist., 205 Neb. 360, 363 , 287 N.W.2d 692, 694 (1980), held that “[b]y passing the jurors for cause the appellants waived any objection to their selection as jurors,” we have in other cases declared that a party who fails to challenge prospective jurors for disqualification and passes them for cause waives any objection to thei 1993He then exercised all three of his peremptory challenges so as to strike Pirrone and two other venirepersons; however, Dudley and Brannen were seated as jurors. (a) Passing Venire Panel for Cause Although we, in Sayer Acres, Inc. v. Middle Republican Nat. *632 Resources Dist., 205 Neb. 360, 363 , 287 N.W.2d 692, 694 (1980), held that “[b]y passing the jurors for cause the appellants waived any objection to their selection as jurors,” we have in other cases declared that a party who fails to challenge prospective jurors for disqualification and passes them for cause waives any objection to thei | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chaneygreen2 sentences1990JURY INSTRUCTIONS The defendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as follows: “Any one or all six may vote to nullify the Law in this case.” “The Law which I have explained to you in this case was written, passed and administered by public servants and now you the governed have the full right and duty to nullify this Law if you do not wish to *40 be governed by it In State v. Chaney, 184 Neb. 734, 740 , 171 N.W.2d 787, 791 (1969), this court said: “[I]t is the duty of the trial judge to instruct on the law of the case and the law so given to the jury in t 1990JURY INSTRUCTIONS The defendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as follows: “Any one or all six may vote to nullify the Law in this case.” “The Law which I have explained to you in this case was written, passed and administered by public servants and now you the governed have the full right and duty to nullify this Law if you do not wish to *40 be governed by it In State v. Chaney, 184 Neb. 734, 740 , 171 N.W.2d 787, 791 (1969), this court said: “[I]t is the duty of the trial judge to instruct on the law of the case and the law so given to the jury in t | 1 | 1 |
State v. McCoygreen2 sentences1990In State v. McCoy, 228 Neb. 178, 183 , 421 N.W.2d 780, 783 (1988), we held that “a party who fails to challenge prospective jurors for disqualification and does not use his peremptory challenges to remove such jurors from the panel waives any objection to their selection.” There was no error in the selection of the jury, and the defendant’s assertions to the contrary are without merit. 1990In State v. McCoy, 228 Neb. 178, 183 , 421 N.W.2d 780, 783 (1988), we held that “a party who fails to challenge prospective jurors for disqualification and does not use his peremptory challenges to remove such jurors from the panel waives any objection to their selection.” There was no error in the selection of the jury, and the defendant’s assertions to the contrary are without merit. | 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. Huff
green
2 sentences2018State v. Huff, 298 Neb. 522 , 905 N.W.2d 59 (2017). 2017Huff relied, in part, on State v. Myers,5 in which we held that a party who fails to challenge a juror for cause waives any objection to the juror’s selection and that if grounds for a challenge for cause arise out of matters occurring after the jury is sworn, “it is the duty of the court to hear evi- dence and examine the jurors and determine whether any juror might be subject to disqualification for cause.” The Court of Appeals rejected Huff’s arguments, reason- ing that because § 29-2004(2) applied, rather than § 29-2006, “the State’s objection to M.F. as a juror was not waived and the duty | 2 | 2017–2018 |
State v. Green
green
2 sentences1997Id., State v. Green, 236 Neb. 33 , 458 N.W.2d 472 (1990), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 , 477 N.W.2d 544 (1991). 1997Id., State v. Green, 236 Neb. 33 , 458 N.W.2d 472 (1990), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 , 477 N.W.2d 544 (1991). | 2 | 1991–1997 |
Regier v. Nebraska Public Power District
neutral
2 sentences1973For that reason this court has consistently held that: “A party who fails to challenge the jurors for disqualification and passes the jurors for cause waives any objection to their selection.” See, Thorpe v. Zwonechek, 177 Neb. 504 , 129 N. W. 2d 483 ; Regier v. Nebraska P. P. Dist., 189 Neb. 56 , 199 N. W. 2d 742 . 1973For that reason this court has consistently held that: “A party who fails to challenge the jurors for disqualification and passes the jurors for cause waives any objection to their selection.” See, Thorpe v. Zwonechek, 177 Neb. 504 , 129 N. W. 2d 483 ; Regier v. Nebraska P. P. Dist., 189 Neb. 56 , 199 N. W. 2d 742 . | 2 | 1973–1993 |
State v. Clark
green
1 sentence2024CLARK Cite as 315 Neb. 736 be made at the time of voir dire.” 13 In other words, Turley does not stand for the proposition that an objection to a juror is waived when the juror has concealed information and the defendant through diligence cannot discover the information before trial. 14 However, we have otherwise hewed to the rule that a party who fails to challenge the jurors for disqualifi- cation and passes the jurors for cause generally waives any objection to their selection as jurors. 15 In the present case, Clark does not suggest that something has been concealed as to the jurors and co | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Field v. Lincoln Gas & Electric Light Co.
green
1 sentence2017Under those circumstances, we held that the issue of the juror’s qualification to serve was waived, stating: 11 See Hilding, supra note 7 . 12 State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 985 , 637 N.W.2d 632 (2002). 13 Myers, supra note 5 . 14 Turley v. State, 74 Neb. 471 , 104 N.W. 934 (1905). - 530 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. HUFF Cite as 298 Neb. 522 Great latitude is allowed the defendant upon the voir dire examination to enable him to ascertain whether there is any ground for objecting to the juror. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Turley v. State
green
1 sentence2017Under those circumstances, we held that the issue of the juror’s qualification to serve was waived, stating: 11 See Hilding, supra note 7 . 12 State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 985 , 637 N.W.2d 632 (2002). 13 Myers, supra note 5 . 14 Turley v. State, 74 Neb. 471 , 104 N.W. 934 (1905). - 530 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. HUFF Cite as 298 Neb. 522 Great latitude is allowed the defendant upon the voir dire examination to enable him to ascertain whether there is any ground for objecting to the juror. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2017Under those circumstances, we held that the issue of the juror’s qualification to serve was waived, stating: 11 See Hilding, supra note 7 . 12 State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 985 , 637 N.W.2d 632 (2002). 13 Myers, supra note 5 . 14 Turley v. State, 74 Neb. 471 , 104 N.W. 934 (1905). - 530 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. HUFF Cite as 298 Neb. 522 Great latitude is allowed the defendant upon the voir dire examination to enable him to ascertain whether there is any ground for objecting to the juror. 2017Under those circumstances, we held that the issue of the juror’s qualification to serve was waived, stating: 11 See Hilding, supra note 7 . 12 State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 985 , 637 N.W.2d 632 (2002). 13 Myers, supra note 5 . 14 Turley v. State, 74 Neb. 471 , 104 N.W. 934 (1905). - 530 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. HUFF Cite as 298 Neb. 522 Great latitude is allowed the defendant upon the voir dire examination to enable him to ascertain whether there is any ground for objecting to the juror. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Ballard
green
1 sentence1997Id., State v. Green, 236 Neb. 33 , 458 N.W.2d 472 (1990), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 , 477 N.W.2d 544 (1991). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Tingle
green
2 sentences1997Id., State v. Green, 236 Neb. 33 , 458 N.W.2d 472 (1990), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 , 477 N.W.2d 544 (1991). 1997Id., State v. Green, 236 Neb. 33 , 458 N.W.2d 472 (1990), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tingle, 239 Neb. 558 , 477 N.W.2d 544 (1991). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Thorpe v. Zwonechek
neutral
2 sentences1973For that reason this court has consistently held that: “A party who fails to challenge the jurors for disqualification and passes the jurors for cause waives any objection to their selection.” See, Thorpe v. Zwonechek, 177 Neb. 504 , 129 N. W. 2d 483 ; Regier v. Nebraska P. P. Dist., 189 Neb. 56 , 199 N. W. 2d 742 . 1973For that reason this court has consistently held that: “A party who fails to challenge the jurors for disqualification and passes the jurors for cause waives any objection to their selection.” See, Thorpe v. Zwonechek, 177 Neb. 504 , 129 N. W. 2d 483 ; Regier v. Nebraska P. P. Dist., 189 Neb. 56 , 199 N. W. 2d 742 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Eggers
green
2 sentences1972State v. Eggers, 175 Neb. 79 , 120 N. W. 2d 541 ; State v. Harris, 184 Neb. 301 , 167 N. W. 2d 386 . 1972State v. Eggers, 175 Neb. 79 , 120 N. W. 2d 541 ; State v. Harris, 184 Neb. 301 , 167 N. W. 2d 386 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State v. Harris
green
2 sentences1972State v. Eggers, 175 Neb. 79 , 120 N. W. 2d 541 ; State v. Harris, 184 Neb. 301 , 167 N. W. 2d 386 . 1972State v. Eggers, 175 Neb. 79 , 120 N. W. 2d 541 ; State v. Harris, 184 Neb. 301 , 167 N. W. 2d 386 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.