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.
9 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mahoney v. Nebraska Methodist Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences2003Charles’ estate objected, and the trial court overruled the objection after Lisa’s estate indicated that it was following up on the information presented during direct examination as to the party who owns the child support claim. *13 Charles’ estate asserts that this questioning violates the collateral source rule, which provides: “[T]he fact that the party seeking recovery has been wholly or partially indemnified for a loss by insurance or otherwise generally cannot be set up by the wrongdoer in mitigation of damages.” See Mahoney v. Nebraska Methodist Hosp., 251 Neb. 841, 847 , 560 N.W.2d 45 2003Charles’ estate objected, and the trial court overruled the objection after Lisa’s estate indicated that it was following up on the information presented during direct examination as to the party who owns the child support claim. *13 Charles’ estate asserts that this questioning violates the collateral source rule, which provides: “[T]he fact that the party seeking recovery has been wholly or partially indemnified for a loss by insurance or otherwise generally cannot be set up by the wrongdoer in mitigation of damages.” See Mahoney v. Nebraska Methodist Hosp., 251 Neb. 841, 847 , 560 N.W.2d 45 | 2 | 4 |
Tetherow v. Wolfegreen2 sentences1990See, Tetherow v. Wolfe, 223 Neb. 631 , 392 N.W.2d 374 (1986); Huenink v. Collins, 181 Neb. 195 , 147 N.W.2d 508 (1966). 1990See, Tetherow v. Wolfe, 223 Neb. 631 , 392 N.W.2d 374 (1986); Huenink v. Collins, 181 Neb. 195 , 147 N.W.2d 508 (1966). | 2 | 2 |
Bynum v. Magnogreen2 sentences2007See, Bynum v. Magno, 106 Haw. 81 , 101 P.3d 1149 (2004) (holding that collateral source rule prohibited reducing patient’s damages award to reflect discounted Medicare and Medicaid payments); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920A, comment c. (1979). 2007See, Bynum v. Magno, 106 Haw. 81 , 101 P.3d 1149 (2004) (holding that collateral source rule prohibited reducing patient’s damages award to reflect discounted Medicare and Medicaid payments); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920A, comment c. (1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Huenink v. Collins
neutral
2 sentences2013The collateral source rule provides that benefits received by the plaintiff from a source wholly independent of and collat- eral to the wrongdoer will not diminish the damages otherwise recoverable from the wrongdoer.2 The theory underlying the adoption of this rule by a majority of jurisdictions is to prevent a tort-feasor from escaping liability because of the act of a third party, even if a possibility exists that the plaintiff may be compensated twice.3 Under the collateral source rule, the fact that the party seeking recovery has been wholly or partially indemnified for a loss by insuranc 2013The collateral source rule provides that benefits received by the plaintiff from a source wholly independent of and collat- eral to the wrongdoer will not diminish the damages otherwise recoverable from the wrongdoer.2 The theory underlying the adoption of this rule by a majority of jurisdictions is to prevent a tort-feasor from escaping liability because of the act of a third party, even if a possibility exists that the plaintiff may be compensated twice.3 Under the collateral source rule, the fact that the party seeking recovery has been wholly or partially indemnified for a loss by insuranc | 3 | 1989–2013 |
Jacobs Eng'g Grp. Inc. v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018GROUP v. CONAGRA FOODS Cite as 301 Neb. 38 ConAgra’s contention that the collateral source rule did not apply in this breach of contract action premised upon negli- gent conduct. [25] Under the collateral source rule, the fact that the party seeking recovery has been wholly or partially indem- nified for a loss by insurance or otherwise cannot be set up by the wrongdoer in mitigation of damages.45 The theory underlying this rule is to prevent a tort-feasor from escaping liability because of the act of a third party, even if a possibil- ity exists that the plaintiff may be compensated twice.46 | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Strasburg v. Union Pacific RR. Co.
neutral
1 sentence2018Co., 286 Neb. 743 , 839 N.W.2d 273 (2013). 46 Id. 47 See Midland Mut. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Pierce v. Landmark Mgmt. Group
green
1 sentence2016GROUP Cite as 293 Neb. 890 recoverable from the wrongdoer.40 Pierce also argued the evi- dence, even if relevant, should be excluded under § 27-403, because any probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Griffith v. Drew's LLC
green
2 sentences2016Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2008), the trial court’s decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.38 In a civil case, the admission or exclusion of evidence is not reversible error unless it unfairly prejudiced a substantial right of the complain- ing party.39 (a) Unemployment Benefits Pierce filed a motion in limine seeking to “exclude at trial any mention of or reference to the fact that [she] may have received unemployment benefits.” In support of excluding the evidence, Pierce primarily argued that evidence of unemploy- ment benefits should be excluded under the collateral sourc 2016Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2008), the trial court’s decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.38 In a civil case, the admission or exclusion of evidence is not reversible error unless it unfairly prejudiced a substantial right of the complain- ing party.39 (a) Unemployment Benefits Pierce filed a motion in limine seeking to “exclude at trial any mention of or reference to the fact that [she] may have received unemployment benefits.” In support of excluding the evidence, Pierce primarily argued that evidence of unemploy- ment benefits should be excluded under the collateral sourc | 1 | 2016–2016 |
In re Estate of Clinger
green
1 sentence2016Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2008), the trial court’s decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.38 In a civil case, the admission or exclusion of evidence is not reversible error unless it unfairly prejudiced a substantial right of the complain- ing party.39 (a) Unemployment Benefits Pierce filed a motion in limine seeking to “exclude at trial any mention of or reference to the fact that [she] may have received unemployment benefits.” In support of excluding the evidence, Pierce primarily argued that evidence of unemploy- ment benefits should be excluded under the collateral sourc | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Fickle v. State
green
2 sentences2013The collateral source rule provides that benefits received by the plaintiff from a source wholly independent of and collat- eral to the wrongdoer will not diminish the damages otherwise recoverable from the wrongdoer.2 The theory underlying the adoption of this rule by a majority of jurisdictions is to prevent a tort-feasor from escaping liability because of the act of a third party, even if a possibility exists that the plaintiff may be compensated twice.3 Under the collateral source rule, the fact that the party seeking recovery has been wholly or partially indemnified for a loss by insuranc 2013The collateral source rule provides that benefits received by the plaintiff from a source wholly independent of and collat- eral to the wrongdoer will not diminish the damages otherwise recoverable from the wrongdoer.2 The theory underlying the adoption of this rule by a majority of jurisdictions is to prevent a tort-feasor from escaping liability because of the act of a third party, even if a possibility exists that the plaintiff may be compensated twice.3 Under the collateral source rule, the fact that the party seeking recovery has been wholly or partially indemnified for a loss by insuranc | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.