set warning in Nebraska

2025SUTTON Cite as 319 Neb. 581 clear error and whether those facts meet constitutional stan- dards independently of the trial court’s determination. 32 Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, includ- ing that the suspect has the right to remain silent, that any statement the suspect makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that the suspect has the right to an attorney, either retained or appointed. 33 These warnings are considered prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant during c

2025SUTTON Cite as 319 Neb. 581 clear error and whether those facts meet constitutional stan- dards independently of the trial court’s determination. 32 Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, includ- ing that the suspect has the right to remain silent, that any statement the suspect makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that the suspect has the right to an attorney, either retained or appointed. 33 These warnings are considered prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant during c

2025SUTTON Cite as 319 Neb. 581 clear error and whether those facts meet constitutional stan- dards independently of the trial court’s determination. 32 Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, includ- ing that the suspect has the right to remain silent, that any statement the suspect makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that the suspect has the right to an attorney, either retained or appointed. 33 These warnings are considered prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant during c

2025SUTTON Cite as 319 Neb. 581 clear error and whether those facts meet constitutional stan- dards independently of the trial court’s determination. 32 Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, includ- ing that the suspect has the right to remain silent, that any statement the suspect makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that the suspect has the right to an attorney, either retained or appointed. 33 These warnings are considered prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant during c

2019Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on one’s freedom as to render one “in custody.”26 Being in custody does not require an arrest, but refers to situ- ations where a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would not have felt free to leave and, thus, would feel the restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.27 [11] Miranda prohibits the use of statements derived during custodial interrogation unless the prosecution demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards that are effective to secure the privilege against se

2019Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on one’s freedom as to render one “in custody.”26 Being in custody does not require an arrest, but refers to situ- ations where a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would not have felt free to leave and, thus, would feel the restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.27 [11] Miranda prohibits the use of statements derived during custodial interrogation unless the prosecution demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards that are effective to secure the privilege against se

2005“One of the principal goals of ERISA is to enable employers ‘to establish a uniform administrative scheme, which provides a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursements of benefits.’ ” Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141, 148 , 121 S. Ct. 1322 , 149 L.

2005“One of the principal goals of ERISA is to enable employers ‘to establish a uniform administrative scheme, which provides a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursements of benefits.’ ” Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141, 148 , 121 S. Ct. 1322 , 149 L.

2005"One of the principal goals of ERISA is to enable employers `to establish a uniform administrative scheme, which provides a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursements of benefits.'" Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141, 148 , 121 S.Ct. 1322 , 149 L.Ed.2d 264 (2001) (quoting Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1 , 107 S.Ct. 2211 , 96 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987)).

2005"One of the principal goals of ERISA is to enable employers `to establish a uniform administrative scheme, which provides a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursements of benefits.'" Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 532 U.S. 141, 148 , 121 S.Ct. 1322 , 149 L.Ed.2d 264 (2001) (quoting Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1 , 107 S.Ct. 2211 , 96 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987)).

2025SUTTON Cite as 319 Neb. 581 clear error and whether those facts meet constitutional stan- dards independently of the trial court’s determination. 32 Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, includ- ing that the suspect has the right to remain silent, that any statement the suspect makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that the suspect has the right to an attorney, either retained or appointed. 33 These warnings are considered prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant during c

2025SUTTON Cite as 319 Neb. 581 clear error and whether those facts meet constitutional stan- dards independently of the trial court’s determination. 32 Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, includ- ing that the suspect has the right to remain silent, that any statement the suspect makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that the suspect has the right to an attorney, either retained or appointed. 33 These warnings are considered prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant during c

2025SUTTON Cite as 319 Neb. 581 clear error and whether those facts meet constitutional stan- dards independently of the trial court’s determination. 32 Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, includ- ing that the suspect has the right to remain silent, that any statement the suspect makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that the suspect has the right to an attorney, either retained or appointed. 33 These warnings are considered prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant during c

2025SUTTON Cite as 319 Neb. 581 clear error and whether those facts meet constitutional stan- dards independently of the trial court’s determination. 32 Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, includ- ing that the suspect has the right to remain silent, that any statement the suspect makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that the suspect has the right to an attorney, either retained or appointed. 33 These warnings are considered prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant during c

2025SUTTON Cite as 319 Neb. 581 clear error and whether those facts meet constitutional stan- dards independently of the trial court’s determination. 32 Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, includ- ing that the suspect has the right to remain silent, that any statement the suspect makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that the suspect has the right to an attorney, either retained or appointed. 33 These warnings are considered prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant during c

2025SUTTON Cite as 319 Neb. 581 clear error and whether those facts meet constitutional stan- dards independently of the trial court’s determination. 32 Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, includ- ing that the suspect has the right to remain silent, that any statement the suspect makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that the suspect has the right to an attorney, either retained or appointed. 33 These warnings are considered prerequisites to the admissibility of any statement made by a defendant during c

2021More specifically, the court held: Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, including that he or she has the right to remain silent, that any statement he or she makes may be used as evidence - 387 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 29 Nebraska Appellate Reports STATE v. SOLLMAN Cite as 29 Neb.

2021Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning, and an appellate court will not resort to - 828 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 29 Nebraska Appellate Reports IN RE ESTATE OF FILSINGER Cite as 29 Neb.

2020Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, including that he or she has the right to remain silent, that any statement he or she makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that he 3 See State v. Stevens, 290 Neb. 460 , 860 N.W.2d 717 (2015). 4 State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 , 900 N.W.2d 776 (2017); State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276 , 900 N.W.2d 454 (2017). 5 Mendez-Osorio, supra note 4 ; Jedlicka, supra note 4 . 6 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

2020Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, including that he or she has the right to remain silent, that any statement he or she makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that he 3 See State v. Stevens, 290 Neb. 460 , 860 N.W.2d 717 (2015). 4 State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 , 900 N.W.2d 776 (2017); State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276 , 900 N.W.2d 454 (2017). 5 Mendez-Osorio, supra note 4 ; Jedlicka, supra note 4 . 6 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

2020Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, including that he or she has the right to remain silent, that any statement he or she makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that he 3 See State v. Stevens, 290 Neb. 460 , 860 N.W.2d 717 (2015). 4 State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 , 900 N.W.2d 776 (2017); State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276 , 900 N.W.2d 454 (2017). 5 Mendez-Osorio, supra note 4 ; Jedlicka, supra note 4 . 6 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

2020Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, including that he or she has the right to remain silent, that any statement he or she makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that he 3 See State v. Stevens, 290 Neb. 460 , 860 N.W.2d 717 (2015). 4 State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 , 900 N.W.2d 776 (2017); State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276 , 900 N.W.2d 454 (2017). 5 Mendez-Osorio, supra note 4 ; Jedlicka, supra note 4 . 6 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

2020Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, including that he or she has the right to remain silent, that any statement he or she makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that he 3 See State v. Stevens, 290 Neb. 460 , 860 N.W.2d 717 (2015). 4 State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 , 900 N.W.2d 776 (2017); State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276 , 900 N.W.2d 454 (2017). 5 Mendez-Osorio, supra note 4 ; Jedlicka, supra note 4 . 6 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

2020Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation, including that he or she has the right to remain silent, that any statement he or she makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that he 3 See State v. Stevens, 290 Neb. 460 , 860 N.W.2d 717 (2015). 4 State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 , 900 N.W.2d 776 (2017); State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276 , 900 N.W.2d 454 (2017). 5 Mendez-Osorio, supra note 4 ; Jedlicka, supra note 4 . 6 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

2019Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on one’s freedom as to render one “in custody.”26 Being in custody does not require an arrest, but refers to situ- ations where a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would not have felt free to leave and, thus, would feel the restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.27 [11] Miranda prohibits the use of statements derived during custodial interrogation unless the prosecution demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards that are effective to secure the privilege against se

2019Miranda warnings are required only where there has been such a restriction on one’s freedom as to render one “in custody.”26 Being in custody does not require an arrest, but refers to situ- ations where a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation would not have felt free to leave and, thus, would feel the restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest.27 [11] Miranda prohibits the use of statements derived during custodial interrogation unless the prosecution demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards that are effective to secure the privilege against se

2017SALES & SERV. v. WEGENER Cite as 297 Neb. 788 assessment of court costs, which is the subject of a separate motion filed by [Lindsay] and scheduled for hearing to be con- ducted on August 5, 2016, will be addressed by separate order of the Court.” The judgment did not mention the motion for new trial, but in a separate order, the court set a hearing date of September 12 for the motion for new trial.

2016We have not previously construed this statutory amendment or considered its impact on the rule announced in In re Adoption of Kassandra B. & Nicholas B. [10,11] The rules of statutory interpretation require an appellate court to give effect to the entire language of a 13 Id. at 921, 540 N.W.2d at 559 . 14 See Klein v. Klein, 230 Neb. 385 , 431 N.W.2d 646 (1988) (holding that consent granted by district court permits county court to entertain jurisdiction over adoption proceeding). 15 In re Adoption of Kassandra B. & Nicholas B., supra note 2, 248 Neb. at 922 , 540 N.W.2d at 560 . 16 Id. at 919

2016We have not previously construed this statutory amendment or considered its impact on the rule announced in In re Adoption of Kassandra B. & Nicholas B. [10,11] The rules of statutory interpretation require an appellate court to give effect to the entire language of a 13 Id. at 921, 540 N.W.2d at 559 . 14 See Klein v. Klein, 230 Neb. 385 , 431 N.W.2d 646 (1988) (holding that consent granted by district court permits county court to entertain jurisdiction over adoption proceeding). 15 In re Adoption of Kassandra B. & Nicholas B., supra note 2, 248 Neb. at 922 , 540 N.W.2d at 560 . 16 Id. at 919

2016We have not previously construed this statutory amendment or considered its impact on the rule announced in In re Adoption of Kassandra B. & Nicholas B. [10,11] The rules of statutory interpretation require an appellate court to give effect to the entire language of a 13 Id. at 921, 540 N.W.2d at 559 . 14 See Klein v. Klein, 230 Neb. 385 , 431 N.W.2d 646 (1988) (holding that consent granted by district court permits county court to entertain jurisdiction over adoption proceeding). 15 In re Adoption of Kassandra B. & Nicholas B., supra note 2, 248 Neb. at 922 , 540 N.W.2d at 560 . 16 Id. at 919

2016We have not previously construed this statutory amendment or considered its impact on the rule announced in In re Adoption of Kassandra B. & Nicholas B. [10,11] The rules of statutory interpretation require an appellate court to give effect to the entire language of a 13 Id. at 921, 540 N.W.2d at 559 . 14 See Klein v. Klein, 230 Neb. 385 , 431 N.W.2d 646 (1988) (holding that consent granted by district court permits county court to entertain jurisdiction over adoption proceeding). 15 In re Adoption of Kassandra B. & Nicholas B., supra note 2, 248 Neb. at 922 , 540 N.W.2d at 560 . 16 Id. at 919

2014Miranda requires “law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person in custody before interrogation: that he has the right to remain silent, that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him, and that he has the right to an attorney, either retained or appointed.” State v. Nave, 284 Neb. 477 , 492, 821 N.W.2d 723 , 735 (2012), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1595 , 185 L.

1992In Welke v. City of Ainsworth, 179 Neb. 496 , 138 N.W.2d 808 (1965), this court set the standard for determining whether an expert’s opinion is sufficient to support a workers’ compensation claim.

1992In Welke v. City of Ainsworth, 179 Neb. 496 , 138 N.W.2d 808 (1965), this court set the standard for determining whether an expert’s opinion is sufficient to support a workers’ compensation claim.