second prong test in Nebraska

2019Stat. § 27-901 (1) (Reissue 2016). 14 See State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 , 920 N.W.2d 692 (2018). 15 Id. 16 Id. - 939 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. MRZA Cite as 302 Neb. 931 (1) whether the text messages were accurately transcribed and (2) who actually sent the text messages.17 Mrza does not challenge the second prong of this test, but argues only that the State failed to prove that the messages were accu- rately transcribed.

2019Stat. § 27-901 (1) (Reissue 2016). 14 See State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 , 920 N.W.2d 692 (2018). 15 Id. 16 Id. - 939 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. MRZA Cite as 302 Neb. 931 (1) whether the text messages were accurately transcribed and (2) who actually sent the text messages.17 Mrza does not challenge the second prong of this test, but argues only that the State failed to prove that the messages were accu- rately transcribed.

2019Stat. § 27-901 (1) (Reissue 2016). 14 See State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 , 920 N.W.2d 692 (2018). 15 Id. 16 Id. - 939 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. MRZA Cite as 302 Neb. 931 (1) whether the text messages were accurately transcribed and (2) who actually sent the text messages.17 Mrza does not challenge the second prong of this test, but argues only that the State failed to prove that the messages were accu- rately transcribed.

2019Stat. § 27-901 (1) (Reissue 2016). 14 See State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 , 920 N.W.2d 692 (2018). 15 Id. 16 Id. - 939 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. MRZA Cite as 302 Neb. 931 (1) whether the text messages were accurately transcribed and (2) who actually sent the text messages.17 Mrza does not challenge the second prong of this test, but argues only that the State failed to prove that the messages were accu- rately transcribed.

2025This broadly worded assignment would fall within the ambit of a place- holder because, as the court went on to explain, this “asser- tion does not set forth the advice actually given and claimed to be insufficient, or the specific advice not given.” State v. German, 316 Neb. at 873 , 7 N.W.3d at 230.

2021Jones v. Jones, 305 Neb. 615 , 941 N.W.2d 501 (2020).

2021Jones v. Jones, 305 Neb. 615 , 941 N.W.2d 501 (2020).

2021To deter- mine whether removal to another jurisdiction is in the child’s best interests, a trial court should consider (1) each parent’s motive for seeking or opposing the move, (2) the potential that the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the child and the custodial parent, and (3) the impact such a move will have on contact between the child and noncustodial parent when viewed in the light of reasonable visitation. 14 [10,11] These three considerations are not exhaustive, nor will they be present in every case. 15 It is the moving party’s burden to show, by a combination of the

2021To deter- mine whether removal to another jurisdiction is in the child’s best interests, a trial court should consider (1) each parent’s motive for seeking or opposing the move, (2) the potential that the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the child and the custodial parent, and (3) the impact such a move will have on contact between the child and noncustodial parent when viewed in the light of reasonable visitation. 14 [10,11] These three considerations are not exhaustive, nor will they be present in every case. 15 It is the moving party’s burden to show, by a combination of the

2021To deter- mine whether removal to another jurisdiction is in the child’s best interests, a trial court should consider (1) each parent’s motive for seeking or opposing the move, (2) the potential that the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the child and the custodial parent, and (3) the impact such a move will have on contact between the child and noncustodial parent when viewed in the light of reasonable visitation. 14 [10,11] These three considerations are not exhaustive, nor will they be present in every case. 15 It is the moving party’s burden to show, by a combination of the

2021To deter- mine whether removal to another jurisdiction is in the child’s best interests, a trial court should consider (1) each parent’s motive for seeking or opposing the move, (2) the potential that the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the child and the custodial parent, and (3) the impact such a move will have on contact between the child and noncustodial parent when viewed in the light of reasonable visitation. 14 [10,11] These three considerations are not exhaustive, nor will they be present in every case. 15 It is the moving party’s burden to show, by a combination of the

2021To deter- mine whether removal to another jurisdiction is in the child’s best interests, a trial court should consider (1) each parent’s motive for seeking or opposing the move, (2) the potential that the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the child and the custodial parent, and (3) the impact such a move will have on contact between the child and noncustodial parent when viewed in the light of reasonable visitation. 14 [10,11] These three considerations are not exhaustive, nor will they be present in every case. 15 It is the moving party’s burden to show, by a combination of the

2021To deter- mine whether removal to another jurisdiction is in the child’s best interests, a trial court should consider (1) each parent’s motive for seeking or opposing the move, (2) the potential that the move holds for enhancing the quality of life for the child and the custodial parent, and (3) the impact such a move will have on contact between the child and noncustodial parent when viewed in the light of reasonable visitation. 14 [10,11] These three considerations are not exhaustive, nor will they be present in every case. 15 It is the moving party’s burden to show, by a combination of the

2017Vela alleged that if his counsel had allowed Zlomke to admin- ister adaptive behavior testing, the results would have shown - 242 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 297 Nebraska R eports STATE v. VELA Cite as 297 Neb. 227 that he had significant limitations in adaptive functioning in at least two of the relevant skill areas and that the court would have found that the second prong of the test for “mental retar- dation” had been established.

2002From that finding, the trial court then went on to consider the second prong of the test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2002From that finding, the trial court then went on to consider the second prong of the test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2001However, we concluded that the record was insufficient to determine the second prong of the test utilized to determine whether a lesser-included instruction could have been given, i.e., whether “the evidence produces a rational basis for acquitting the defendant of the greater offense and convicting the defendant of the lesser offense.” Id. at 664 , 573 N.W.2d at 405 .

2001However, we concluded that the record was insufficient to determine the second prong of the test utilized to determine whether a lesser-included instruction could have been given, i.e., whether “the evidence produces a rational basis for acquitting the defendant of the greater offense and convicting the defendant of the lesser offense.” Id. at 664 , 573 N.W.2d at 405 .

2000With respect to the majority’s analysis that the statement should be excluded as inadmissible hearsay because it lacks particularized guarantees of trustworthiness under the second prong of the test as articulated in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L.

2000With respect to the majority’s analysis that the statement should be excluded as inadmissible hearsay because it lacks particularized guarantees of trustworthiness under the second prong of the test as articulated in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L.

1984This determination “focuses not on the actor’s perception of the statutes’ wording, but rather on the enforcement method of the police and the court’s disposition of the indictment before it.” Commonwealth v. DeFrancesco, supra [ 481 Pa. 595 ], at 608, 393 A.2d [321] at 328 [1978].

1984This determination “focuses not on the actor’s perception of the statutes’ wording, but rather on the enforcement method of the police and the court’s disposition of the indictment before it.” Commonwealth v. DeFrancesco, supra [ 481 Pa. 595 ], at 608, 393 A.2d [321] at 328 [1978].