10 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2021See Muhannad I, supra. See, also, State v. Williams, 24 Neb. 2017Factors that a court may consider in deter- mining whether the prosecutor intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial include the following: (1) whether there was a sequence of overreaching or error prior to the errors resulting in the mistrial; (2) whether the prosecutor resisted the motion for mistrial; (3) whether the prosecutor testified, and the court below found, that there was no intent to cause a mistrial; (4) the timing of the error; - 921 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 24 Nebraska A ppellate R eports STATE v. WILLIAMS Cite as 24 Neb. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Becker v. Federal Election Commission
green
2 sentences2018The timing requirement is important because the plaintiff’s personal interest “is to be assessed under the rubric of standing at the commencement of the case, and under the rubric of mootness thereafter.” Becker v. Federal Election Com’n, 230 F.3d 381 , 386 n.3 (1st Cir. 2000). 2018The timing requirement is important because the plaintiff's personal interest "is to be assessed under the rubric of standing at the commencement of the case, and under the rubric of mootness thereafter." Becker v. Federal Election Com'n , 230 F.3d 381 , 386 n.3 (1st Cir. 2000). | 4 | 2006–2018 |
Myers v. Nebraska Investment Council
green
2 sentences2018Myers , 272 Neb. at 682 -83 , 724 N.W.2d at 792 . 2018Myers , 272 Neb. at 682 -83 , 724 N.W.2d at 792 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Brown
green
1 sentence2022Chase, supra. In the present case, the district court has assisted our review by making findings at the time of each of the three continuances. [11] To calculate the time for statutory speedy trial pur- poses, “a court must exclude the day the complaint was filed, count forward 6 months, back up 1 day, and then add any time excluded under § 29-1207(4) to determine the last day the defendant can be tried.” Brown, 310 Neb. at 233 , 964 N.W.2d at 689 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Ramos
green
1 sentence2021The court noted that “[t]he mistrial was granted primarily because it appeared that the witnesses had violated the sequestration order, because the late discovery of the ‘missing video’ came as a surprise to the defense, as well as the culmination of the series of errors [during the discov- ery process].” However, the court did not further explain how - 530 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 29 Nebraska Appellate Reports STATE v. RAMOS Cite as 29 Neb. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Kolbjornsen
green
2 sentences2021Indeed, we have said that trial court’s articulation of its reasoning, includ- ing its knowledge of docket congestion, is not competent evi- dence to support a finding of good cause, 25 because, by statute, the judge presiding at the trial may not testify as a witness. 26 The burden under § 29-1207(4)(f ) is simply that there be “good cause.” In determining whether the trial court clearly erred in finding good cause after a hearing on a motion for discharge, we look not just to the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion for discharge, but to the whole of the record. 27 The only timing 2021Indeed, we have said that trial court’s articulation of its reasoning, includ- ing its knowledge of docket congestion, is not competent evi- dence to support a finding of good cause, 25 because, by statute, the judge presiding at the trial may not testify as a witness. 26 The burden under § 29-1207(4)(f ) is simply that there be “good cause.” In determining whether the trial court clearly erred in finding good cause after a hearing on a motion for discharge, we look not just to the evidence presented at the hearing on the motion for discharge, but to the whole of the record. 27 The only timing | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.