Davis motion in Nebraska

2024State v. Stricklin, 300 Neb. 794 , 916 N.W.2d 413 (2018).

2024State v. Stricklin, 300 Neb. 794 , 916 N.W.2d 413 (2018).

2023DAVIS Cite as 313 Neb. 587 obscenity charge, which is why we find his opposition to Davis’ motion for summary judgment failed.” The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.

2022Specifically, Davis asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when trial counsel (a) did not effectively communicate with him, (b) withheld information from the court that may have helped secure Davis’ release from custody or dismissal of the case, (c) requested a continuance of the jury trial despite Davis’ objection, and (d) filed pretrial motions that Davis did not request and did not want filed, delaying his right to a speedy trial. [11-14] Recently, in State v. Drake, 311 Neb. 219, 236-37 , 971 N.W.2d 759 , 774 (2022), the Nebraska Supreme Court set forth the directives t

2022The prosecutor said, “I’m actually impeaching her now, because I just showed her a document that she said was her statement.” Defense counsel responded that the State had not “shown a need” to impeach its own wit- ness and that “there has been nothing inculpatory said by her, nothing exculpatory said by her.” The district court overruled Davis’ objection. - 871 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DAVIS Cite as 310 Neb. 865 The prosecutor continued questioning Skalberg, “Isn’t it true that, in your statement, you wrote that [Davis and his compan- ion] both said

2022Buttercase is correct that once a movant for summary judg- ment makes a prima facie case, the burden to produce evidence showing the existence of a material issue of fact that prevents 22 Rodriguez v. Nielsen, supra note 10 , 259 Neb. at 273 , 609 N.W.2d at 374 . 23 See, e.g., id. at 273 , 609 N.W.2d at 375 (“[W]e do not agree with those jurisdictions that require convicted criminals to obtain exoneration through postconviction relief or reversal on appeal before pursuing an action for criminal legal malpractice; the statute of limitations for professional negligence . . . and our decision in

2022Buttercase is correct that once a movant for summary judg- ment makes a prima facie case, the burden to produce evidence showing the existence of a material issue of fact that prevents 22 Rodriguez v. Nielsen, supra note 10 , 259 Neb. at 273 , 609 N.W.2d at 374 . 23 See, e.g., id. at 273 , 609 N.W.2d at 375 (“[W]e do not agree with those jurisdictions that require convicted criminals to obtain exoneration through postconviction relief or reversal on appeal before pursuing an action for criminal legal malpractice; the statute of limitations for professional negligence . . . and our decision in

2022In re Interest of Mekhi S., 309 Neb. 529 , 960 N.W.2d 732 (2021) (emphasizing that such headings do not satisfy requirements of appellate rules).

2022In re Interest of Mekhi S., 309 Neb. 529 , 960 N.W.2d 732 (2021) (emphasizing that such headings do not satisfy requirements of appellate rules).

2021When asked if he had a theory on why the Neon rolled away from the gas station, Limpach acknowledged the possibility that he might not have put the Neon “all the way in reverse.” - 870 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports DAVIS v. RIDDER Cite as 309 Neb. 865 The district court entered an order granting Ridder’s motion for summary judgment and denying Davis’ motion to recon- sider the district court’s dismissal of Limpach.

2021Although the district court should have converted Limpach’s motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment and possibly should have given Davis the opportunity to depose Ridder and Limpach before ruling on it, any error in the district court’s treatment of the motion to dismiss was cured when it - 872 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports DAVIS v. RIDDER Cite as 309 Neb. 865 later ruled on Davis’ motion to reconsider.

1989Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 797 , 72 S. Ct. 1002 , 96 L.

1989Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 797 , 72 S. Ct. 1002 , 96 L.

1988As reflected in Davis’ direct appeal, State v. Davis, 224 Neb. 518 , 398 N.W.2d 729 (1987), he was represented at trial by counsel; a jury found Davis guilty of second degree forgery, see Neb.

1988As reflected in Davis’ direct appeal, State v. Davis, 224 Neb. 518 , 398 N.W.2d 729 (1987), he was represented at trial by counsel; a jury found Davis guilty of second degree forgery, see Neb.