presence hearing (Nebraska) · Go Syfert
← Nebraska issues

presence hearing in Nebraska

10 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1905–2020 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Merricksgreen
fla · 2002 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007See, also, State v. Merricks, 831 So. 2d 156, 160 (Fla. 2002) (“the potential for prejudice is the same, if not greater, when a bailiff, rather than a trial judge, answers a jury’s inquiry directly without notice to and outside the presence of defense counsel and the State”).

11
Lewis v. Behgreen
iowa · 1928 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1949–1949
2 sentences

1949See, Lewis v. Beh, 206 Iowa 281 , 218 N. W. 944 ; Wallace v. Wallace, 216 N. Y. 28 , 109 N. E. 872 ; Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 6 S. W. 2d 576 , 67 A. L.

1949See, Lewis v. Beh, 206 Iowa 281 , 218 N. W. 944 ; Wallace v. Wallace, 216 N. Y. 28 , 109 N. E. 872 ; Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 6 S. W. 2d 576 , 67 A. L.

11

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 (11)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Watt green
neb · 2013
2 sentences

2020We recognize that in State v. Watt, 285 Neb. 647 , 832 N.W.2d 459 (2013), we briefly considered a sufficiency of the evidence argument based on Portsche.

2020We recognize that in State v. Watt, 285 Neb. 647 , 832 N.W.2d 459 (2013), we briefly considered a sufficiency of the evidence argument based on Portsche.

12020–2020
State v. Smith green
neb · 1983
2 sentences

1993In State v. Smith, 213 Neb. 446 , 329 N.W.2d 564 (1983), the Nebraska Supreme Court reminded us of the reason for the policy prohibiting the use of prior uncounseled convictions.

1993In State v. Smith, 213 Neb. 446 , 329 N.W.2d 564 (1983), the Nebraska Supreme Court reminded us of the reason for the policy prohibiting the use of prior uncounseled convictions.

11993–1993
Wever v. State neutral
neb · 1931
2 sentences

1990In Wever v. State, 121 Neb. 816 , 238 N.W. 736 (1931), the defendant contended he was deprived of a fair trial because of hissing and applauding on the part of spectators in the courtroom during trial.

1990In Wever v. State, 121 Neb. 816 , 238 N.W. 736 (1931), the defendant contended he was deprived of a fair trial because of hissing and applauding on the part of spectators in the courtroom during trial.

11990–1990
State v. White green
neb · 1974
2 sentences

1979In Nebraska, the harmless error rule is set out in State v. White, 191 Neb. 772 , 217 N. W. 2d 916 (1974).

1979In Nebraska, the harmless error rule is set out in State v. White, 191 Neb. 772 , 217 N. W. 2d 916 (1974).

11979–1979
Bucy v. Hieber neutral
neb · 1948
2 sentences

1967In re Estate of Bucy, 150 Neb. 263 , 34 N. W. 2d 265 ; Holyoke v. Sipp, 77 Neb. 394 , 109 N. W. 506 .

1967In re Estate of Bucy, 150 Neb. 263 , 34 N. W. 2d 265 ; Holyoke v. Sipp, 77 Neb. 394 , 109 N. W. 506 .

11967–1967
Holyoke v. Sipp neutral
neb · 1906
2 sentences

1967In re Estate of Bucy, 150 Neb. 263 , 34 N. W. 2d 265 ; Holyoke v. Sipp, 77 Neb. 394 , 109 N. W. 506 .

1967In re Estate of Bucy, 150 Neb. 263 , 34 N. W. 2d 265 ; Holyoke v. Sipp, 77 Neb. 394 , 109 N. W. 506 .

11967–1967
Tempero v. Adams green
neb · 1950
2 sentences

1955Therefore, by analogy from Tempero v. Adams, 153 Neb. 331 , 44 N. W. 2d 604 , the maximum legal speed limit at point of accident was 45 miles per hour.

1955Therefore, by analogy from Tempero v. Adams, 153 Neb. 331 , 44 N. W. 2d 604 , the maximum legal speed limit at point of accident was 45 miles per hour.

11955–1955
Wahl v. Cunningham green
· 1928
2 sentences

1949See, Lewis v. Beh, 206 Iowa 281 , 218 N. W. 944 ; Wallace v. Wallace, 216 N. Y. 28 , 109 N. E. 872 ; Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 6 S. W. 2d 576 , 67 A. L.

1949See, Lewis v. Beh, 206 Iowa 281 , 218 N. W. 944 ; Wallace v. Wallace, 216 N. Y. 28 , 109 N. E. 872 ; Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 6 S. W. 2d 576 , 67 A. L.

11949–1949
Wallace v. . Wallace green
· 1915
2 sentences

1949See, Lewis v. Beh, 206 Iowa 281 , 218 N. W. 944 ; Wallace v. Wallace, 216 N. Y. 28 , 109 N. E. 872 ; Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 6 S. W. 2d 576 , 67 A. L.

1949See, Lewis v. Beh, 206 Iowa 281 , 218 N. W. 944 ; Wallace v. Wallace, 216 N. Y. 28 , 109 N. E. 872 ; Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57 , 6 S. W. 2d 576 , 67 A. L.

11949–1949
Jones v. State neutral
neb · 1910
1 sentence

1914The next complaint is that, when the court had finished, reading its charge to the jury, it announced to counsel in the presence and hearing of the jury the following language: “The instruction asked by defendant is refused.” This did not constitute reversible error, nor does Jones v. State, 87 Neb. 390 , cited bv defendant, so hold. 6.

11914–1914
Blomgren v. Anderson neutral
neb · 1896
1 sentence

1905In Blomgren v. Anderson, 48 Neb. 240 , it was held that, in an action to recover for services rendered under special contract, where the defense alleged that the consideration for such services was the plaintiff’s board and lodging during the period, evidence that at that time a third person in the defendant’s presence and hearing offered to employ the plaintiff at substantial wages for work of the same general character was properly admissible as bearing upon the reasonableness of the claim and in some degree corroborative of the plaintiff’s testimony.

11905–1905

Where else courts name it

CA 168 (1889–2026) NY 126 (1858–2026) IL 120 (1899–2026) TX 110 (1909–2026) AL 86 (1845–2010) PA 83 (1896–2025) WA 56 (1901–2023) GA 56 (1900–2021) MO 52 (1867–2025) WY 47 (1936–2025) TN 41 (1948–2024) IN 38 (1872–2018) LA 36 (1915–2015) NC 32 (1881–2024) MI 32 (1911–2025) OH 31 (1881–2025) NJ 31 (1945–2026) KS 30 (1901–2026) KY 29 (1917–2025) MS 29 (1909–2022) NM 28 (1946–2022) FL 28 (1952–2026) CO 28 (1904–2024) CT 27 (1939–2025) MA 27 (1892–2026) VA 26 (1795–2023) OR 24 (1893–2025) MN 23 (1924–2018) OK 23 (1911–2015) AR 22 (1916–2024) DC 21 (1973–2019) WI 20 (1923–2024) ID 19 (1923–2022) MD 17 (1933–2014) IA 17 (1916–2023) VT 13 (1904–2026) RI 13 (1973–2014) MT 13 (1924–2024) ME 13 (1925–2019) AZ 11 (1920–2009) DE 11 (1981–2025) NE 10 (1905–2020) WV 8 (1981–2003) AK 7 (1972–2019) UT 7 (1985–2024) ND 6 (1971–2023) SD 6 (1913–2013) HI 5 (1977–2021) PR 4 (1918–1966) SC 4 (1936–2016) NH 3 (1951–1995) NV 2 (1987–2021)

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