11 Nebraska opinions name it 1 courts 1954–1986 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gretchen Swanson Family Foundation, Inc. v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1983In searching for the intention of the testator the court must examine the entire will, consider each of its provisions, give words their generally accepted literal and grammatical meaning, and indulge the presumption that the testator understood the meaning of the words used. * * * The intention within the ambit of this rule is the one the testator expressed by the language of the will and not an entertained but unexpressed intention.’ ” Gretchen Swanson Family Foundation, Inc. v. Johnson, 193 Neb. 641, 643-44 , 228 N.W.2d 608, 610 (1975). 1983In searching for the intention of the testator the court must examine the entire will, consider each of its provisions, give words their generally accepted literal and grammatical meaning, and indulge the presumption that the testator understood the meaning of the words used. * * * The intention within the ambit of this rule is the one the testator expressed by the language of the will and not an entertained but unexpressed intention.’ ” Gretchen Swanson Family Foundation, Inc. v. Johnson, 193 Neb. 641, 643-44 , 228 N.W.2d 608, 610 (1975). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Allengreen2 sentences1986See People v Allen, 90 Mich. App. 128 , 282 N.W.2d 255 (1979) (rule governing admission of lay testimony as to sanity does not apply to a witness who simply describes defendant’s manipulative character). *822 Since Quiroz and Ogden did not offer an opinion regarding Norfolk’s sanity, but testified concerning their observations of Norfolk’s conduct or behavior in terms of false perceptions or mistaken ideas, admissibility of such testimony is controlled by the personal knowledge requirement prescribed by Rule 602, Nebraska Evidence Rules. 1986See People v Allen, 90 Mich. App. 128 , 282 N.W.2d 255 (1979) (rule governing admission of lay testimony as to sanity does not apply to a witness who simply describes defendant’s manipulative character). *822 Since Quiroz and Ogden did not offer an opinion regarding Norfolk’s sanity, but testified concerning their observations of Norfolk’s conduct or behavior in terms of false perceptions or mistaken ideas, admissibility of such testimony is controlled by the personal knowledge requirement prescribed by Rule 602, Nebraska Evidence Rules. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. Evans
green
2 sentences1983They are within the ambit of the rule announced in Anderson v. Evans, 164 Neb. 599 , 83 N.W.2d 59 : ‘The possibility that the photographs might have a tendency to create sympathy in favor of one party should not render them inadmissible as proof of an issue on the trial.’ ” Id. at 623-24 , 126 N.W.2d at 825 . 1983They are within the ambit of the rule announced in Anderson v. Evans, 164 Neb. 599 , 83 N.W.2d 59 : ‘The possibility that the photographs might have a tendency to create sympathy in favor of one party should not render them inadmissible as proof of an issue on the trial.’ ” Id. at 623-24 , 126 N.W.2d at 825 . | 2 | 1964–1983 |
Zents v. Zents
green
2 sentences1961In re Estate of Zents, 148 Neb. 104 , 26 N. W. 2d 793 ; Kramer v. Larson, supra. A patent ambiguity in a will must be removed by interpretation according to legal principles and the intention of the testator must be found within the four corners of the will. 1961In re Estate of Zents, 148 Neb. 104 , 26 N. W. 2d 793 ; Kramer v. Larson, supra. A patent ambiguity in a will must be removed by interpretation according to legal principles and the intention of the testator must be found within the four corners of the will. | 2 | 1954–1961 |
Schmailzl v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF BOADS
green
1 sentence1983They are within the ambit of the rule announced in Anderson v. Evans, 164 Neb. 599 , 83 N.W.2d 59 : ‘The possibility that the photographs might have a tendency to create sympathy in favor of one party should not render them inadmissible as proof of an issue on the trial.’ ” Id. at 623-24 , 126 N.W.2d at 825 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Dunlap v. Lynn
green
2 sentences1975In *644 searching for the intention of the testator the court must examine the entire will, consider each of its provisions, give words their generally accepted literal and grammatical meaning, and indulge the presumption that the testator understood the meaning of the words used. * * * >phe intention within the ambit of this rule is the one the testator expressed by the language of the will and not an entertained but unexpressed intention.” Dunlap v. Lynn, 166 Neb. 342 , 89 N. W. 2d 58 . 1975In *644 searching for the intention of the testator the court must examine the entire will, consider each of its provisions, give words their generally accepted literal and grammatical meaning, and indulge the presumption that the testator understood the meaning of the words used. * * * >phe intention within the ambit of this rule is the one the testator expressed by the language of the will and not an entertained but unexpressed intention.” Dunlap v. Lynn, 166 Neb. 342 , 89 N. W. 2d 58 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Criswell v. McKnight
green
2 sentences1961This certainly is a case within the ambit of the principle inherent in all subrogation cases and well expressed in Criswell v. McKnight, 120 Neb. 317 , 232 N. W. 586 , 84 A. L. 1961This certainly is a case within the ambit of the principle inherent in all subrogation cases and well expressed in Criswell v. McKnight, 120 Neb. 317 , 232 N. W. 586 , 84 A. L. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Blochowitz v. Blochowitz
green
2 sentences1958Kramer v. Larson, 158 Neb. 404 , 63 N. W. 2d 349 ; Blochowitz v. Blochowitz, 130 Neb. 789 , 266 N. W. 644 ;. 1958Kramer v. Larson, 158 Neb. 404 , 63 N. W. 2d 349 ; Blochowitz v. Blochowitz, 130 Neb. 789 , 266 N. W. 644 ;. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Kramer v. Larson
green
2 sentences1958Kramer v. Larson, 158 Neb. 404 , 63 N. W. 2d 349 ; Blochowitz v. Blochowitz, 130 Neb. 789 , 266 N. W. 644 ;. 1958Kramer v. Larson, 158 Neb. 404 , 63 N. W. 2d 349 ; Blochowitz v. Blochowitz, 130 Neb. 789 , 266 N. W. 644 ;. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Hill v. Hill
green
2 sentences1954“The intention within the ambit of this rule is the one the testator expressed by the language of the will and not an entertained but unexpressed intention.” Also, as early as Hill v. Hill, 90 Neb. 43 , 132 N. W. 738 , 38 L. 1954“The intention within the ambit of this rule is the one the testator expressed by the language of the will and not an entertained but unexpressed intention.” Also, as early as Hill v. Hill, 90 Neb. 43 , 132 N. W. 738 , 38 L. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Prather v. Watson's
neutral
1 sentence1954In re Estate of Zents, 148 Neb. 104 , 26 N. W. 2d 793 ; Prather v. Watson’s Executor, 187 Ky. 709 , 220 S. W. 2d 532 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.