first step analysis (Nebraska) · Go Syfert
← Nebraska issues

first step analysis in Nebraska

10 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2025 1 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Lemke v. Metropolitan Utilities Districtgreen
neb · 1993 · cited in 2 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019See Lemke v. Metropolitan Utilities Dist. , 243 Neb. 633 , 502 N.W.2d 80 (1993) (discretionary function exception of Federal Tort Claims Act is substantially similar to PSTCA).

2019See Lemke v. Metropolitan Utilities Dist. , 243 Neb. 633 , 502 N.W.2d 80 (1993) (discretionary function exception of Federal Tort Claims Act is substantially similar to PSTCA).

22

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Williams green
neb · 1993
2 sentences

2001Accordingly, for this reason, and given the holding of Johnson, supra, we find that the first step in the analysis pursuant to State v. Williams, 243 Neb. 959 , 503 N.W.2d 561 (1993), is satisfied.

2001Accordingly, for this reason, and given the holding of Johnson, supra, we find that the first step in the analysis pursuant to State v. Williams, 243 Neb. 959 , 503 N.W.2d 561 (1993), is satisfied.

21997–2001
Backhaus v. Backhaus green
neb · 2025
1 sentence

2025BACKHAUS Cite as 318 Neb. 891 to be nonmarital. 18 In this matter, the disputed property is not mixed and is either all marital or all nonmarital. [11,12] We have also explained that the burden of proof rests with the party claiming that the property is nonmarital. 19 To that end, unless an exception applies, the burden of proof in civil cases requires only the greater weight of the evidence. 20 The greater weight of the evidence means evidence sufficient to make a claim more likely true than not true. 21 That burden of proof applies here, and as the party asserting the nonmarital interest in

12025–2025
Batson v. Kentucky green
scotus · 1986
2 sentences

2017Under the first step of an inquiry under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S. Ct. 1712 , 90 L.

2017Under the first step of an inquiry under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S. Ct. 1712 , 90 L.

12017–2017
State v. Watt green
neb · 2013
1 sentence

2015Id.

12015–2015
Marshall v. Wimes green
neb · 2001
2 sentences

2005Hass v. Neth, supra; Marshall v. Wimes, 261 Neb. 846 , 626 N.W.2d 229 (2001).

2005Hass v. Neth, supra; Marshall v. Wimes, 261 Neb. 846 , 626 N.W.2d 229 (2001).

12005–2005
McCune v. Neitzel green
neb · 1990
2 sentences

2001A lot of people was there.” Applying the first step of the standard in McCune v. Neitzel, 235 Neb. 754 , 457 N.W.2d 803 (1990), I would construe the facts as follows: (1) Holmes was attacked, subdued, and handcuffed by the security officers; (2) Holmes suffered injuries to his knees and shoulder which left scars; (3) the incident occurred in front of a large crowd; (4) Holmes was placed in fear of his life during the incident; (5) Holmes suffered shame and humiliation during the incident; and (6) Holmes was seen later that day by emergency room personnel.

2001A lot of people was there.” Applying the first step of the standard in McCune v. Neitzel, 235 Neb. 754 , 457 N.W.2d 803 (1990), I would construe the facts as follows: (1) Holmes was attacked, subdued, and handcuffed by the security officers; (2) Holmes suffered injuries to his knees and shoulder which left scars; (3) the incident occurred in front of a large crowd; (4) Holmes was placed in fear of his life during the incident; (5) Holmes suffered shame and humiliation during the incident; and (6) Holmes was seen later that day by emergency room personnel.

12001–2001
Ventura v. State of Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission green
neb · 1994
2 sentences

1995Ventura v. State, 246 Neb. 116 , 517 N.W.2d 368 (1994); Hoffman, supra. The first step in our analysis is to determine the applicable statute of limitations.

1995Ventura v. State, 246 Neb. 116 , 517 N.W.2d 368 (1994); Hoffman, supra. The first step in our analysis is to determine the applicable statute of limitations.

11995–1995

Where else courts name it

TX 204 (1986–2026) CA 193 (1983–2026) IL 156 (1981–2026) OH 111 (1986–2026) IA 53 (1983–2024) WI 46 (1981–2025) OR 33 (1985–2024) KS 33 (1998–2026) MD 29 (1912–2025) FL 29 (1984–2025) MO 28 (1984–2024) NJ 27 (1983–2025) MI 26 (2007–2026) MN 25 (1986–2026) NM 25 (1997–2024) PA 25 (1982–2025) UT 24 (1904–2026) IN 23 (1981–2025) WA 23 (1975–2026) TN 22 (1995–2026) CT 21 (1989–2025) NY 20 (1981–2022) ME 18 (2000–2026) NC 18 (1981–2026) LA 16 (1990–2024) GA 15 (1988–2025) VT 14 (1993–2017) CO 14 (1985–2026) DC 14 (1988–2026) VA 12 (1993–2025) MA 11 (1996–2025) ID 11 (1986–2025) RI 11 (1984–2025) NE 10 (1995–2025) KY 10 (1990–2025) MT 9 (1995–2015) WV 8 (1982–2019) DE 8 (1992–2024) NH 8 (1990–2024) SD 5 (2002–2018) AK 5 (1988–2019) AZ 5 (1979–2013) MS 5 (2001–2015) ND 5 (2004–2014) HI 4 (1994–2017) NV 3 (2000–2022) OK 3 (2018–2025) AL 2 (2001–2001) AR 2 (2011–2016) VI 2 (2014–2023)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check