structural error (Nebraska) · Go Syfert
← Nebraska issues

structural error in Nebraska

10 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 4 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 (7)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Thomasgreen
neb · 2004 · cited in 3 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2018–2019
2 sentences

2019Fuentes further contends that trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking such recusal. [4-7] The right to an impartial judge is guaranteed under the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions, the parameters of which are coextensive.5 In order to show a constitutional violation of the right to an impartial judge, a defendant must prove actual bias or structural error.6 Structural error occurs when the defendant shows that a judge has such a strong personal or financial interest in the outcome of the trial that he or she was unable to hold the proper balance between the State

2019Fuentes further contends that trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking such recusal. [4-7] The right to an impartial judge is guaranteed under the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions, the parameters of which are coextensive.5 In order to show a constitutional violation of the right to an impartial judge, a defendant must prove actual bias or structural error.6 Structural error occurs when the defendant shows that a judge has such a strong personal or financial interest in the outcome of the trial that he or she was unable to hold the proper balance between the State

13
Arizona v. Fulminantegreen
scotus · 1991 · cited in 2 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2000–2023
2 sentences

2023Structural error, on the other hand, “def[ies] analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards” because it “affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds” and is not “simply an error in the trial process itself.” Id., 499 U.S. at 309, 310 .

2023Structural error, on the other hand, “def[ies] analysis by ‘harmless-error’ standards” because it “affect[s] the framework within which the trial proceeds” and is not “simply an error in the trial process itself.” Id., 499 U.S. at 309, 310 .

12
Brecht v. Abrahamsongreen
scotus · 1993 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023See, also, Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 , 113 S. Ct. 1710 , 123 L.

2023See, also, Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 , 113 S. Ct. 1710 , 123 L.

11
State v. Lottergreen
neb · 1999 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
2 sentences

1999Similarly, in the supplemental opinion to State v. Lotter, we first considered the structural error standard by addressing the claim that the ex parte contact with the prosecutor showed that the judge “ ‘had such a strong personal or financial interest in the outcome of the trial that he was unable to hold the proper balance between the state and the accused.’ ” 255 Neb. 889, 892 , 587 N.W.2d 673, 675 (1999), quoting Dyas /.

1999Similarly, in the supplemental opinion to State v. Lotter, we first considered the structural error standard by addressing the claim that the ex parte contact with the prosecutor showed that the judge “ ‘had such a strong personal or financial interest in the outcome of the trial that he was unable to hold the proper balance between the state and the accused.’ ” 255 Neb. 889, 892 , 587 N.W.2d 673, 675 (1999), quoting Dyas /.

11
Cotton v. Steelegreen
neb · 1999 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
1 sentence

1999As we held in our supplemental opinion to State v. Lotter, a defendant must show that “an instance of actual bias on the part of the trial court” occurred in order to indicate a constitutional violation of the right to an impartial judge. 255 Neb. at 892, 587 N.W.2d at 675, citing Dyas III, supra. Applying the Lotter actual bias test, we determine the finding of Judge Moran that the May 9, 1986, meeting did not bias Judge Finn is not clearly erroneous.

11
State v. Strohlgreen
neb · 1999 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
1 sentence

1999As we held in our supplemental opinion to State v. Lotter, a defendant must show that “an instance of actual bias on the part of the trial court” occurred in order to indicate a constitutional violation of the right to an impartial judge. 255 Neb. at 892, 587 N.W.2d at 675, citing Dyas III, supra. Applying the Lotter actual bias test, we determine the finding of Judge Moran that the May 9, 1986, meeting did not bias Judge Finn is not clearly erroneous.

11
Booth v. Marylandred
scotus · 1987 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
1 sentence

1999See id.

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 (10)

CaseCitedYears
Weaver v. Massachusetts green
scotus · 2017
2 sentences

2019Fuentes further contends that trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking such recusal. [4-7] The right to an impartial judge is guaranteed under the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions, the parameters of which are coextensive.5 In order to show a constitutional violation of the right to an impartial judge, a defendant must prove actual bias or structural error.6 Structural error occurs when the defendant shows that a judge has such a strong personal or financial interest in the outcome of the trial that he or she was unable to hold the proper balance between the State

2019Fuentes further contends that trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking such recusal. [4-7] The right to an impartial judge is guaranteed under the Due Process Clauses of the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions, the parameters of which are coextensive.5 In order to show a constitutional violation of the right to an impartial judge, a defendant must prove actual bias or structural error.6 Structural error occurs when the defendant shows that a judge has such a strong personal or financial interest in the outcome of the trial that he or she was unable to hold the proper balance between the State

32019–2024
United States v. Davila green
scotus · 2013
2 sentences

2026Structural error is the term the U.S. Supreme Court has used to refer to “a very limited class of errors that trigger automatic reversal because they undermine the fairness of a criminal proceeding as a whole.” See United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597, 611 , 133 S. Ct. 2139 , 186 L.

2026Structural error is the term the U.S. Supreme Court has used to refer to “a very limited class of errors that trigger automatic reversal because they undermine the fairness of a criminal proceeding as a whole.” See United States v. Davila, 569 U.S. 597, 611 , 133 S. Ct. 2139 , 186 L.

22023–2026
State v. Buttercase green
neb · 2017
2 sentences

2019Ed. 2d 420 (2017). 9 State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304 , 893 N.W.2d 430 (2017). 10 Id. at 314 , 893 N.W.2d at 438 . 11 Buttercase, supra note 9 . - 925 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. FUENTES Cite as 302 Neb. 919 Fuentes essentially acknowledges that this case does not include structural error.

2019Ed. 2d 420 (2017). 9 State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304 , 893 N.W.2d 430 (2017). 10 Id. at 314 , 893 N.W.2d at 438 . 11 Buttercase, supra note 9 . - 925 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. FUENTES Cite as 302 Neb. 919 Fuentes essentially acknowledges that this case does not include structural error.

22019–2019
State v. Fuentes green
neb · 2019
2 sentences

2019Ed. 2d 420 (2017). 9 State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304 , 893 N.W.2d 430 (2017). 10 Id. at 314 , 893 N.W.2d at 438 . 11 Buttercase, supra note 9 . - 925 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. FUENTES Cite as 302 Neb. 919 Fuentes essentially acknowledges that this case does not include structural error.

2019Ed. 2d 420 (2017). 9 State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304 , 893 N.W.2d 430 (2017). 10 Id. at 314 , 893 N.W.2d at 438 . 11 Buttercase, supra note 9 . - 925 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. FUENTES Cite as 302 Neb. 919 Fuentes essentially acknowledges that this case does not include structural error.

22019–2019
Uhrich & Brown Ltd. Part. v. Middle Republican NRD green
neb · 2023
1 sentence

2023MIDDLE REPUBLICAN NRD Cite as 315 Neb. 596 on the part of the decisionmaker that is too high to be constitutionally tolerable, this amounts to structural error requiring reversal. 32.

12023–2023
State v. Galindo green
neb · 2023
1 sentence

2023GALINDO Cite as 315 Neb. 1 569 U.S. 597, 611 , 133 S. Ct. 2139 , 186 L.

12023–2023
State v. Barranco green
neb · 2009
2 sentences

2014See, State v. Abram, 284 Neb. 55 , 815 N.W.2d 897 (2012); State v. Barranco, 278 Neb. 165 , 769 N.W.2d 343 (2009).

2014See, State v. Abram, 284 Neb. 55 , 815 N.W.2d 897 (2012); State v. Barranco, 278 Neb. 165 , 769 N.W.2d 343 (2009).

12014–2014
Tumey v. Ohio green
scotus · 1927
2 sentences

1999The court found that the facts of die case did not show that the judge was “unable to hold the proper balance *655 between the state and the accused.” Dyas I, 705 F.2d at 997 , citing Turney v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S. Ct. 437 , 71 L.

1999The court found that the facts of die case did not show that the judge was “unable to hold the proper balance *655 between the state and the accused.” Dyas I, 705 F.2d at 997 , citing Turney v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S. Ct. 437 , 71 L.

11999–1999
Neder v. United States green
scotus · 1999
2 sentences

1999Id.

1999Id. (i) Structural Error In Dyas I, the Eighth Circuit declined to apply the structural error standard.

11999–1999
Dyas v. Lockhart green
ca8 · 1983
1 sentence

1999The court found that the facts of die case did not show that the judge was “unable to hold the proper balance *655 between the state and the accused.” Dyas I, 705 F.2d at 997 , citing Turney v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S. Ct. 437 , 71 L.

11999–1999

Where else courts name it

IL 265 (1974–2026) OH 250 (1996–2026) CA 178 (1995–2026) MI 171 (1994–2026) TX 157 (1996–2026) WA 152 (2002–2025) PA 96 (2003–2026) OR 86 (1992–2024) CO 73 (1995–2026) LA 70 (1993–2026) IA 65 (2003–2026) MA 55 (1995–2025) NC 46 (2002–2025) KY 45 (2005–2026) AZ 44 (1996–2026) MN 41 (2001–2026) MT 41 (2001–2026) KS 40 (2001–2026) WI 36 (2003–2025) CT 32 (1996–2026) MD 29 (2001–2026) NV 28 (2001–2021) DC 26 (1997–2025) NM 26 (2004–2025) MO 25 (2002–2024) GA 25 (2007–2025) UT 24 (1996–2026) NJ 23 (1992–2026) ND 21 (2004–2025) TN 19 (2006–2025) ID 16 (2003–2023) FL 15 (1995–2023) SD 13 (2000–2025) WY 12 (2008–2025) SC 12 (1995–2025) OK 12 (1997–2022) AL 11 (1999–2024) VA 10 (2005–2026) HI 10 (2013–2025) NE 10 (1999–2026) ME 9 (2001–2026) AR 9 (1996–2026) IN 8 (2002–2025) AK 6 (2018–2025) VT 6 (1995–2026) DE 6 (2003–2025) NY 5 (1939–2012) VI 4 (2013–2026) GU 3 (2022–2025) MS 3 (2013–2023) NH 3 (2009–2013)

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