75 Nebraska opinions name it 3 courts 1967–2025 27 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 |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Douglas Countygreen2 sentences2021Accord Davis v. State, 297 Neb. 955 , 902 N.W.2d 165 (2017). - 266 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports EDWARDS v. DOUGLAS COUNTY Cite as 308 Neb. 259 The sovereign immunity of the State and its political subdi- visions is not a matter of judicial fiat; it is constitutional. 2021But the Legislature has expressly preserved the government’s sovereign immunity for negligence claims that arise out of 70 See, Moser, supra note 3 ; Britton, supra note 13. 71 Jill B. & Travis B., supra note 22, 297 Neb. at 93, 899 N.W.2d at 265. 72 § 13-910(7). - 280 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports EDWARDS v. DOUGLAS COUNTY Cite as 308 Neb. 259 assaults, and Edwards has brought such a claim. | 3 | 4 |
Davis v. Stategreen2 sentences2022As the Nebraska Supreme Court stated in Davis v. State, 297 Neb. 955, 983-84 , 902 N.W.2d 165, 188-89 (2017): Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , the State’s sovereign immunity does not bar a claim for damages against state officials and employees who are sued in their personal capacities. 2022As the Nebraska Supreme Court stated in Davis v. State, 297 Neb. 955, 983-84 , 902 N.W.2d 165, 188-89 (2017): Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , the State’s sovereign immunity does not bar a claim for damages against state officials and employees who are sued in their personal capacities. | 2 | 4 |
Moser v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See, also, Moser, supra note 11 , 307 Neb. at 23 , 948 N.W.2d at 199 (“[a]s pertinent here, the STCA waives the State’s sovereign immunity for tort claims against the State on account of personal injury caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the State, while acting within the scope of his or her office or employment, under circumstances in which the State, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant for such injury”); Northland Ins. 2022See, also, Moser, supra note 11 , 307 Neb. at 23 , 948 N.W.2d at 199 (“[a]s pertinent here, the STCA waives the State’s sovereign immunity for tort claims against the State on account of personal injury caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the State, while acting within the scope of his or her office or employment, under circumstances in which the State, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant for such injury”); Northland Ins. | 2 | 4 |
Blitzkie v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Co. v. State, 242 Neb. 10, 14 , 492 N.W.2d 866, 869 (1992) (holding “an action for contribution is covered under [the STCA], but only if a private person would be liable to the claimant for the damage, loss, injury, or death”); Blitzkie v. State, 228 Neb. 409, 415 , 422 N.W.2d 773, 777 (1988) (“[s]ubject to certain exempted claims, the [STCA] provides for the State’s liability for its torts the same as a private person may be liable for torts”). 37 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (b) and 2671 to 2680 (2018). 38 § 2674. - 680 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports DOE V. 2022Co. v. State, 242 Neb. 10, 14 , 492 N.W.2d 866, 869 (1992) (holding “an action for contribution is covered under [the STCA], but only if a private person would be liable to the claimant for the damage, loss, injury, or death”); Blitzkie v. State, 228 Neb. 409, 415 , 422 N.W.2d 773, 777 (1988) (“[s]ubject to certain exempted claims, the [STCA] provides for the State’s liability for its torts the same as a private person may be liable for torts”). 37 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (b) and 2671 to 2680 (2018). 38 § 2674. - 680 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports DOE V. | 2 | 3 |
Wiseman v. Kellergreen2 sentences2015We conclude there has been no waiver of the counties’ sovereign immunity in these cases. [10] In addition to filing suit against the individual coun- ties, SID #1 filed suit against the county treasurers of those 15 Hoeings v. County of Adams, supra note 5 , 245 Neb. at 890 , 516 N.W.2d at 235 . 16 Hoeings v. County of Adams, supra note 5 . 17 Wiseman v. Keller, 218 Neb. 717, 720 , 358 N.W.2d 768, 770 (1984). 18 Concerned Citizens v. Department of Environ. 2015We conclude there has been no waiver of the counties’ sovereign immunity in these cases. [10] In addition to filing suit against the individual coun- ties, SID #1 filed suit against the county treasurers of those 15 Hoeings v. County of Adams, supra note 5 , 245 Neb. at 890 , 516 N.W.2d at 235 . 16 Hoeings v. County of Adams, supra note 5 . 17 Wiseman v. Keller, 218 Neb. 717, 720 , 358 N.W.2d 768, 770 (1984). 18 Concerned Citizens v. Department of Environ. | 2 | 3 |
Lambert v. Lincoln Public Schoolsgreen2 sentences2022Accord Edwards v. Douglas County, 308 Neb. 259 , 953 N.W.2d 744 (2021) (whether allegations of complaint set forth claims which are precluded by exemptions under Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act presents question of law). 16 See id. 17 See id. 18 See id. 19 See Edwards, supra note 15 . 20 Lambert v. Lincoln Public Schools, 306 Neb. 192 , 945 N.W.2d 84 (2020). - 676 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports DOE V. 2022Accord Edwards v. Douglas County, 308 Neb. 259 , 953 N.W.2d 744 (2021) (whether allegations of complaint set forth claims which are precluded by exemptions under Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act presents question of law). 16 See id. 17 See id. 18 See id. 19 See Edwards, supra note 15 . 20 Lambert v. Lincoln Public Schools, 306 Neb. 192 , 945 N.W.2d 84 (2020). - 676 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports DOE V. | 2 | 2 |
Northland Insurance v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Co. v. State, 242 Neb. 10, 14 , 492 N.W.2d 866, 869 (1992) (holding “an action for contribution is covered under [the STCA], but only if a private person would be liable to the claimant for the damage, loss, injury, or death”); Blitzkie v. State, 228 Neb. 409, 415 , 422 N.W.2d 773, 777 (1988) (“[s]ubject to certain exempted claims, the [STCA] provides for the State’s liability for its torts the same as a private person may be liable for torts”). 37 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (b) and 2671 to 2680 (2018). 38 § 2674. - 680 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports DOE V. 2022Co. v. State, 242 Neb. 10, 14 , 492 N.W.2d 866, 869 (1992) (holding “an action for contribution is covered under [the STCA], but only if a private person would be liable to the claimant for the damage, loss, injury, or death”); Blitzkie v. State, 228 Neb. 409, 415 , 422 N.W.2d 773, 777 (1988) (“[s]ubject to certain exempted claims, the [STCA] provides for the State’s liability for its torts the same as a private person may be liable for torts”). 37 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (b) and 2671 to 2680 (2018). 38 § 2674. - 680 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 312 Nebraska Reports DOE V. | 2 | 2 |
| Johnson v. Stategreen | 2 | 2 |
Gentry v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Gentry v. State, 174 Neb. 515 , 118 N.W.2d 643 (1962); Anstine, supra. However, statutes authorizing suits against the state are to be strictly construed because such statutes are in derogation of the state’s sovereign immunity. 1994Gentry v. State, 174 Neb. 515 , 118 N.W.2d 643 (1962); Anstine, supra. However, statutes authorizing suits against the state are to be strictly construed because such statutes are in derogation of the state’s sovereign immunity. | 1 | 4 |
County of Lancaster v. Stategreen2 sentences1997County of Lancaster v. State, 247 Neb. 723 , 529 N.W.2d 791 (1995); Concerned Citizens v. Department of Environ. 1997County of Lancaster v. State, 247 Neb. 723 , 529 N.W.2d 791 (1995); Concerned Citizens v. Department of Environ. | 1 | 3 |
Alden v. Mainegreen2 sentences2000The Court first rejected the notion that substantive federal law by its own force necessarily overrides the states' sovereign immunity; rather, "[w]hen a State asserts its immunity to suit, the question is not the primacy of federal law but the implementation of the law in a manner consistent with the constitutional sovereignty of the States." 527 U.S. at 732 , 119 S.Ct. 2240 . 2000The Court first rejected the notion that substantive federal law by its own force necessarily overrides the states’ sovereign immunity; rather, “[w]hen a State asserts its immunity to suit, the question is not the primacy of federal law but the implementation of the law in a manner consistent with the constitutional sovereignty of the States.” 527 U.S. at 732 . | 1 | 2 |
| Pointer v. Stategreen | 1 | 2 |
| King v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Riley v. State
green
2 sentences1998Riley v. State, 244 Neb. 250 , 506 N.W.2d 45 (1993). 1998Riley v. State, 244 Neb. 250 , 506 N.W.2d 45 (1993). | 7 | 1994–1998 |
Burke v. Bd. of Trs. of the Neb. State Colls.
green
2 sentences2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] An appellate court affirms a lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1 An appellate court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reason- able inferences in that party’s favor. 2 [3-5] Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in natu 2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] An appellate court affirms a lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1 An appellate court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reason- able inferences in that party’s favor. 2 [3-5] Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in natu | 5 | 2019–2024 |
Hoiengs v. County of Adams
green
2 sentences2015We conclude there has been no waiver of the counties’ sovereign immunity in these cases. [10] In addition to filing suit against the individual coun- ties, SID #1 filed suit against the county treasurers of those 15 Hoeings v. County of Adams, supra note 5 , 245 Neb. at 890 , 516 N.W.2d at 235 . 16 Hoeings v. County of Adams, supra note 5 . 17 Wiseman v. Keller, 218 Neb. 717, 720 , 358 N.W.2d 768, 770 (1984). 18 Concerned Citizens v. Department of Environ. 2015We conclude there has been no waiver of the counties’ sovereign immunity in these cases. [10] In addition to filing suit against the individual coun- ties, SID #1 filed suit against the county treasurers of those 15 Hoeings v. County of Adams, supra note 5 , 245 Neb. at 890 , 516 N.W.2d at 235 . 16 Hoeings v. County of Adams, supra note 5 . 17 Wiseman v. Keller, 218 Neb. 717, 720 , 358 N.W.2d 768, 770 (1984). 18 Concerned Citizens v. Department of Environ. | 4 | 1998–2015 |
Catania v. University of Nebraska
green
2 sentences1998Wiseman, supra; Catania v. The University of Nebraska, 204 Neb. 304 , 282 N.W.2d 27 (1979), overruled on other grounds, Blitzkie, supra. *129 In subsection 10 of § 81-8,219, the Legislature chose to exempt from suit all claims against the state “arising out of” conditions on the highway caused by nature or due to weather conditions. 1998Wiseman, supra; Catania v. The University of Nebraska, 204 Neb. 304 , 282 N.W.2d 27 (1979), overruled on other grounds, Blitzkie, supra. *129 In subsection 10 of § 81-8,219, the Legislature chose to exempt from suit all claims against the state “arising out of” conditions on the highway caused by nature or due to weather conditions. | 4 | 1984–1998 |
Clark v. Sargent Irr. Dist.
green
2 sentences2022Cite as 311 Neb. 123 that doctrine, a state’s immunity from suit is recognized as a fundamental aspect of sovereignty. 15 The doctrine of sovereign immunity is, by its nature, jurisdictional. 16 [10] The sovereign immunity of the State and its political subdivisions is preserved in Neb. 2022Cite as 311 Neb. 123 that doctrine, a state’s immunity from suit is recognized as a fundamental aspect of sovereignty. 15 The doctrine of sovereign immunity is, by its nature, jurisdictional. 16 [10] The sovereign immunity of the State and its political subdivisions is preserved in Neb. | 3 | 2022–2024 |
Doe v. State
neutral
2 sentences2024General Principles of Sovereign Immunity [5-7] Under the common-law doctrine of sovereign immu- nity, a state’s immunity from suit is recognized as a funda- mental aspect of sovereignty. 20 The doctrine of sovereign immunity is, by its nature, jurisdictional, 21 and presents a question of subject matter jurisdiction that courts cannot ignore. 22 Questions regarding a court’s subject matter juris- diction should be resolved as a threshold matter before an examination of the merits. 23 We therefore begin our analysis by reviewing the principles of sovereign immunity that bear on subject matter j 2024General Principles of Sovereign Immunity [5-7] Under the common-law doctrine of sovereign immu- nity, a state’s immunity from suit is recognized as a funda- mental aspect of sovereignty. 20 The doctrine of sovereign immunity is, by its nature, jurisdictional, 21 and presents a question of subject matter jurisdiction that courts cannot ignore. 22 Questions regarding a court’s subject matter juris- diction should be resolved as a threshold matter before an examination of the merits. 23 We therefore begin our analysis by reviewing the principles of sovereign immunity that bear on subject matter j | 3 | 2022–2024 |
Cappel v. State
green
2 sentences2022“Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, and courts have a duty to determine whether they have subject matter jurisdiction over a matter.” Cappel v. State, 298 Neb. 445, 451 , 905 N.W.2d 38 , 45 (2017). 2019STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, and courts have a duty to determine whether they have subject matter jurisdiction over a matter.7 Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law.8 When a jurisdictional question does not 7 Cappel v. State, 298 Neb. 445 , 905 N.W.2d 38 (2017). 8 LeRette v. Howard, 300 Neb. 128 , 912 N.W.2d 706 (2018). - 500 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports BURKE v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES Cite as 302 Neb. 494 involve a factual dispute, the issue is a matter of law. | 3 | 2019–2022 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2022Sovereign Immunity and Subject Matter Jurisdiction [4,5] A state’s sovereign immunity from suit is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction that an appellate court cannot ignore. 19 Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue that should be resolved prior to an examination of the merits. 20 We therefore begin our analysis by reviewing familiar principles of sovereign immunity which bear on the court’s subject matter jurisdiction in this case. [6-8] Nebraska has long recognized the “‘rule that a state is not liable to a person injured by the negligence of its employees, 2022Sovereign Immunity and Subject Matter Jurisdiction [4,5] A state’s sovereign immunity from suit is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction that an appellate court cannot ignore. 19 Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue that should be resolved prior to an examination of the merits. 20 We therefore begin our analysis by reviewing familiar principles of sovereign immunity which bear on the court’s subject matter jurisdiction in this case. [6-8] Nebraska has long recognized the “‘rule that a state is not liable to a person injured by the negligence of its employees, | 3 | 2021–2022 |
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences2022Sovereign Immunity and Subject Matter Jurisdiction [4,5] A state’s sovereign immunity from suit is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction that an appellate court cannot ignore. 19 Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue that should be resolved prior to an examination of the merits. 20 We therefore begin our analysis by reviewing familiar principles of sovereign immunity which bear on the court’s subject matter jurisdiction in this case. [6-8] Nebraska has long recognized the “‘rule that a state is not liable to a person injured by the negligence of its employees, 2022Sovereign Immunity and Subject Matter Jurisdiction [4,5] A state’s sovereign immunity from suit is a matter of subject matter jurisdiction that an appellate court cannot ignore. 19 Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold issue that should be resolved prior to an examination of the merits. 20 We therefore begin our analysis by reviewing familiar principles of sovereign immunity which bear on the court’s subject matter jurisdiction in this case. [6-8] Nebraska has long recognized the “‘rule that a state is not liable to a person injured by the negligence of its employees, | 3 | 2020–2022 |
Lane v. Pena
green
2 sentences2021Just like Nebraska, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a sovereign immunity waiver “will be strictly construed . . . in favor of the sovereign.” Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 , 116 S. Ct. 2092 , 135 L. 2021Just like Nebraska, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that a sovereign immunity waiver “will be strictly construed . . . in favor of the sovereign.” Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 , 116 S. Ct. 2092 , 135 L. | 3 | 2020–2021 |
Concerned Citizens of Kimball County, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Control
green
2 sentences2015Contr., 244 Neb. 152 , 505 N.W.2d 654 (1993). 1997Contr., supra Such suit is barred because the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive the State of Nebraska's sovereign immunity. | 3 | 1994–2015 |
Garcia v. City of Omaha
green
2 sentences2025General Principles of Law (a) Sovereign Immunity [4] Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional matter that can be raised at any time by a party or the court. 38 NRDs are political subdivisions of the state, 39 and political subdivisions have sub- ordinate powers of sovereignty conferred by the Legislature. 40 We have long held that no suit may be maintained against the State or its political subdivisions unless the Legislature, 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Garcia v. City of Omaha, 316 Neb. 817 , 7 N.W.3d 188 (2024). 39 See § 2-3213(1). 40 See Lamb v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 36, 293 Neb. 138 , 876 2025General Principles of Law (a) Sovereign Immunity [4] Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional matter that can be raised at any time by a party or the court. 38 NRDs are political subdivisions of the state, 39 and political subdivisions have sub- ordinate powers of sovereignty conferred by the Legislature. 40 We have long held that no suit may be maintained against the State or its political subdivisions unless the Legislature, 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Garcia v. City of Omaha, 316 Neb. 817 , 7 N.W.3d 188 (2024). 39 See § 2-3213(1). 40 See Lamb v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 36, 293 Neb. 138 , 876 | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State ex rel. Seeman v. Lower Republican NRD
neutral
2 sentences2025General Principles of Law (a) Sovereign Immunity [4] Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional matter that can be raised at any time by a party or the court. 38 NRDs are political subdivisions of the state, 39 and political subdivisions have sub- ordinate powers of sovereignty conferred by the Legislature. 40 We have long held that no suit may be maintained against the State or its political subdivisions unless the Legislature, 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Garcia v. City of Omaha, 316 Neb. 817 , 7 N.W.3d 188 (2024). 39 See § 2-3213(1). 40 See Lamb v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 36, 293 Neb. 138 , 876 2025General Principles of Law (a) Sovereign Immunity [4] Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional matter that can be raised at any time by a party or the court. 38 NRDs are political subdivisions of the state, 39 and political subdivisions have sub- ordinate powers of sovereignty conferred by the Legislature. 40 We have long held that no suit may be maintained against the State or its political subdivisions unless the Legislature, 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Garcia v. City of Omaha, 316 Neb. 817 , 7 N.W.3d 188 (2024). 39 See § 2-3213(1). 40 See Lamb v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 36, 293 Neb. 138 , 876 | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Lamb v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 36
green
2 sentences2025General Principles of Law (a) Sovereign Immunity [4] Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional matter that can be raised at any time by a party or the court. 38 NRDs are political subdivisions of the state, 39 and political subdivisions have sub- ordinate powers of sovereignty conferred by the Legislature. 40 We have long held that no suit may be maintained against the State or its political subdivisions unless the Legislature, 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Garcia v. City of Omaha, 316 Neb. 817 , 7 N.W.3d 188 (2024). 39 See § 2-3213(1). 40 See Lamb v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 36, 293 Neb. 138 , 876 2025General Principles of Law (a) Sovereign Immunity [4] Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional matter that can be raised at any time by a party or the court. 38 NRDs are political subdivisions of the state, 39 and political subdivisions have sub- ordinate powers of sovereignty conferred by the Legislature. 40 We have long held that no suit may be maintained against the State or its political subdivisions unless the Legislature, 36 Id. 37 Id. 38 Garcia v. City of Omaha, 316 Neb. 817 , 7 N.W.3d 188 (2024). 39 See § 2-3213(1). 40 See Lamb v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 36, 293 Neb. 138 , 876 | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Wilkinson v. Dotson
green
2 sentences2023STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] A district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo. 4 When reviewing an order dismissing a complaint, the appellate court accepts as true all facts which are well pled and the proper and reasonable inferences of law and fact which may be drawn therefrom, but not the plaintiff’s conclusion. 5 [3,4] Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, and courts have a duty to determine whether they have subject matter jurisdiction over a matter. 6 Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. 7 An appellate court independently reviews questions of law de 2023STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] A district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo. 4 When reviewing an order dismissing a complaint, the appellate court accepts as true all facts which are well pled and the proper and reasonable inferences of law and fact which may be drawn therefrom, but not the plaintiff’s conclusion. 5 [3,4] Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, and courts have a duty to determine whether they have subject matter jurisdiction over a matter. 6 Subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. 7 An appellate court independently reviews questions of law de | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Hofmann
green
2 sentences2022Under 13 See State v. Hofmann, 310 Neb. 609 , 967 N.W.2d 435 (2021). 14 See, Seivert v. Alli, 309 Neb. 246 , 959 N.W.2d 777 (2021); State ex rel. 2022Under 13 See State v. Hofmann, 310 Neb. 609 , 967 N.W.2d 435 (2021). 14 See, Seivert v. Alli, 309 Neb. 246 , 959 N.W.2d 777 (2021); State ex rel. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Dion v. City of Omaha
green
2 sentences2022The district court found as follows: “The elements of a - 558 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports DION v. CITY OF OMAHA Cite as 311 Neb. 522 battery have clearly been met when this Court applies the ele- ments to the evidence in this case.” That is, the district court found that the City’s officers had committed the intentional tort of battery, the death arose from the battery, and the action was barred by the sovereign immunity retained by the City under the intentional tort exception found in § 13‑910(7). 2022The district court found as follows: “The elements of a - 558 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports DION v. CITY OF OMAHA Cite as 311 Neb. 522 battery have clearly been met when this Court applies the ele- ments to the evidence in this case.” That is, the district court found that the City’s officers had committed the intentional tort of battery, the death arose from the battery, and the action was barred by the sovereign immunity retained by the City under the intentional tort exception found in § 13‑910(7). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Seivert v. Alli
green
2 sentences2022Under 13 See State v. Hofmann, 310 Neb. 609 , 967 N.W.2d 435 (2021). 14 See, Seivert v. Alli, 309 Neb. 246 , 959 N.W.2d 777 (2021); State ex rel. 2022Under 13 See State v. Hofmann, 310 Neb. 609 , 967 N.W.2d 435 (2021). 14 See, Seivert v. Alli, 309 Neb. 246 , 959 N.W.2d 777 (2021); State ex rel. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Interest of Krystal P.
green
2 sentences2021Section 25-1803(1) acts as a limited waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity in civil actions brought by the State to the extent that fees and expenses shall be awarded except when the court finds that the position of the State was substan- tially justified. 3 Section 25-1803 provides in full: (1) Unless otherwise provided by law, the court hav- ing jurisdiction over a civil action brought by the state or an action for judicial review brought against the state 2 Dycus v. Dycus, 307 Neb. 426 , 949 N.W.2d 357 (2020). 3 In re Interest of Krystal P. et al., 251 Neb. 320 , 557 N.W.2d 26 (1996). - 2021Section 25-1803(1) acts as a limited waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity in civil actions brought by the State to the extent that fees and expenses shall be awarded except when the court finds that the position of the State was substan- tially justified. 3 Section 25-1803 provides in full: (1) Unless otherwise provided by law, the court hav- ing jurisdiction over a civil action brought by the state or an action for judicial review brought against the state 2 Dycus v. Dycus, 307 Neb. 426 , 949 N.W.2d 357 (2020). 3 In re Interest of Krystal P. et al., 251 Neb. 320 , 557 N.W.2d 26 (1996). - | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Dycus v. Dycus
green
2 sentences2021Section 25-1803(1) acts as a limited waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity in civil actions brought by the State to the extent that fees and expenses shall be awarded except when the court finds that the position of the State was substan- tially justified. 3 Section 25-1803 provides in full: (1) Unless otherwise provided by law, the court hav- ing jurisdiction over a civil action brought by the state or an action for judicial review brought against the state 2 Dycus v. Dycus, 307 Neb. 426 , 949 N.W.2d 357 (2020). 3 In re Interest of Krystal P. et al., 251 Neb. 320 , 557 N.W.2d 26 (1996). - 2021Section 25-1803(1) acts as a limited waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity in civil actions brought by the State to the extent that fees and expenses shall be awarded except when the court finds that the position of the State was substan- tially justified. 3 Section 25-1803 provides in full: (1) Unless otherwise provided by law, the court hav- ing jurisdiction over a civil action brought by the state or an action for judicial review brought against the state 2 Dycus v. Dycus, 307 Neb. 426 , 949 N.W.2d 357 (2020). 3 In re Interest of Krystal P. et al., 251 Neb. 320 , 557 N.W.2d 26 (1996). - | 2 | 2021–2021 |
| SID No. 1 v. Adamy neutral | 2 | 2015–2020 |
| Thomas v. Board of Trustees green | 2 | 2019–2019 |
| LeRette v. Howard green | 2 | 2019–2019 |
| State Ex Rel. Spire v. Conway green | 2 | 2019–2019 |
| Kimminau v. City of Hastings green | 2 | 2015–2019 |
| Woollen v. State green | 2 | 2000–2001 |
| Anstine v. State, Department of Banking & Receivership Division green | 2 | 1985–1993 |
| Larsen v. Sarpy Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 77-0027 green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Barber v. State neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Joshua M. v. State green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Ryan v. State green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Community Care Health Plan of Neb. v. Jackson neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Reiber v. County of Gage green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Nebraska Journalism Trust v. Dept. of Envt. & Energy green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Schaeffer v. Frakes green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Brown green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Lassalle v. State green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| In re Estate of Brinkman green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Baker-Heser v. State green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Chaney v. Evnen green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.