10 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1959–2014 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Muller v. Nebraska Methodist Hospitalgreen2 sentences2000However, we have observed: “ ‘The doctrine of stare decisis is grounded on public policy and, as such, is entitled to great weight and must be adhered to, unless the reasons therefor have ceased to exist, are clearly erroneous, or are manifestly wrong and *528 mischievous or unless more harm than good will result from doing so.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190, 195 , 583 N.W.2d 31, 36 (1998) (quoting Muller v. Nebraska Methodist Hospital, 160 Neb. 279 , 70 N.W.2d 86 (1955), overruled in part, Myers v. Drozda, 180 Neb. 183 , 141 N.W.2d 852 (1966)). 2000However, we have observed: “ ‘The doctrine of stare decisis is grounded on public policy and, as such, is entitled to great weight and must be adhered to, unless the reasons therefor have ceased to exist, are clearly erroneous, or are manifestly wrong and *528 mischievous or unless more harm than good will result from doing so.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190, 195 , 583 N.W.2d 31, 36 (1998) (quoting Muller v. Nebraska Methodist Hospital, 160 Neb. 279 , 70 N.W.2d 86 (1955), overruled in part, Myers v. Drozda, 180 Neb. 183 , 141 N.W.2d 852 (1966)). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Burlisongreen2 sentences2000However, we have observed: “ ‘The doctrine of stare decisis is grounded on public policy and, as such, is entitled to great weight and must be adhered to, unless the reasons therefor have ceased to exist, are clearly erroneous, or are manifestly wrong and *528 mischievous or unless more harm than good will result from doing so.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190, 195 , 583 N.W.2d 31, 36 (1998) (quoting Muller v. Nebraska Methodist Hospital, 160 Neb. 279 , 70 N.W.2d 86 (1955), overruled in part, Myers v. Drozda, 180 Neb. 183 , 141 N.W.2d 852 (1966)). 2000However, we have observed: “ ‘The doctrine of stare decisis is grounded on public policy and, as such, is entitled to great weight and must be adhered to, unless the reasons therefor have ceased to exist, are clearly erroneous, or are manifestly wrong and *528 mischievous or unless more harm than good will result from doing so.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190, 195 , 583 N.W.2d 31, 36 (1998) (quoting Muller v. Nebraska Methodist Hospital, 160 Neb. 279 , 70 N.W.2d 86 (1955), overruled in part, Myers v. Drozda, 180 Neb. 183 , 141 N.W.2d 852 (1966)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holm v. Holm
green
2 sentences2006Id. 2005Holm v. Holm, 267 Neb. 867 , 678 N.W.2d 499 (2004). | 3 | 2005–2006 |
State v. Reeves
green
2 sentences2005State v. Reeves, 258 Neb. 511 , 604 N.W.2d 151 (2000). *453 These principles, compelling adherence to our prior resolution of ■ issues, will prove dispositive of several of Gales’ claims. (i) Ex Post Facto Law Gales first argues that L.B. 1 was an impermissible ex post facto law, because, according to Gales, L.B. 1 transformed the statutory aggravating circumstances from sentencing factors into elements of “capital felony murder.” Brief for appellant at 9. 2005State v. Reeves, 258 Neb. 511 , 604 N.W.2d 151 (2000). *453 These principles, compelling adherence to our prior resolution of ■ issues, will prove dispositive of several of Gales’ claims. (i) Ex Post Facto Law Gales first argues that L.B. 1 was an impermissible ex post facto law, because, according to Gales, L.B. 1 transformed the statutory aggravating circumstances from sentencing factors into elements of “capital felony murder.” Brief for appellant at 9. | 2 | 2003–2005 |
Myers v. Drozda
green
2 sentences2000However, we have observed: “ ‘The doctrine of stare decisis is grounded on public policy and, as such, is entitled to great weight and must be adhered to, unless the reasons therefor have ceased to exist, are clearly erroneous, or are manifestly wrong and *528 mischievous or unless more harm than good will result from doing so.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190, 195 , 583 N.W.2d 31, 36 (1998) (quoting Muller v. Nebraska Methodist Hospital, 160 Neb. 279 , 70 N.W.2d 86 (1955), overruled in part, Myers v. Drozda, 180 Neb. 183 , 141 N.W.2d 852 (1966)). 2000However, we have observed: “ ‘The doctrine of stare decisis is grounded on public policy and, as such, is entitled to great weight and must be adhered to, unless the reasons therefor have ceased to exist, are clearly erroneous, or are manifestly wrong and *528 mischievous or unless more harm than good will result from doing so.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190, 195 , 583 N.W.2d 31, 36 (1998) (quoting Muller v. Nebraska Methodist Hospital, 160 Neb. 279 , 70 N.W.2d 86 (1955), overruled in part, Myers v. Drozda, 180 Neb. 183 , 141 N.W.2d 852 (1966)). | 2 | 1998–2000 |
Tomlin v. Densberger Drywall Inc.
green
1 sentence2014The compensation court 38 Tomlin, supra note 9 , 14 Neb. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, 266 Neb. 526, 667 N.W.2d 167 (2003). 2004Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, 266 Neb. 526, 667 N.W.2d 167 (2003). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.