9 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1920–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Amtrust, Inc. v. Larsongreen1 sentence2014See Amtrust Inc. v. Larson, 388 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Leroy Lloyd Lamegreen1 sentence1990See, Howard v. Pung, 862 F.2d 1348, 1350 (8th Cir. 1988) (“ 'I don’t think I’d better say any more — ’til I have an attorney’ ”); United States v. Fouche, 776 F.2d 1398, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985) (defendant said he “ ‘might want to talk to a lawyer’ ”); United States v. *600 Cherry, 733 F.2d 1124, 1127 (5th Cir. 1984) (“ ‘ “Maybe I should talk to an attorney before I make a further statement,” ’ ” and “ ‘Why should I not get an attorney?’ ”); United States v. Lame, 716 F.2d 515, 517 (8th Cir. 1983) (“ ‘maybe I should get a lawyer’ ”); State v. Moulds, 105 Idaho 880, 889 , 673 P.2d 1074, 1083 (1983) | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James Thomas Cherry, Jr.green1 sentence1990See, Howard v. Pung, 862 F.2d 1348, 1350 (8th Cir. 1988) (“ 'I don’t think I’d better say any more — ’til I have an attorney’ ”); United States v. Fouche, 776 F.2d 1398, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985) (defendant said he “ ‘might want to talk to a lawyer’ ”); United States v. *600 Cherry, 733 F.2d 1124, 1127 (5th Cir. 1984) (“ ‘ “Maybe I should talk to an attorney before I make a further statement,” ’ ” and “ ‘Why should I not get an attorney?’ ”); United States v. Lame, 716 F.2d 515, 517 (8th Cir. 1983) (“ ‘maybe I should get a lawyer’ ”); State v. Moulds, 105 Idaho 880, 889 , 673 P.2d 1074, 1083 (1983) | 1 | 1 |
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Pierre Fouche, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellantgreen1 sentence1990See, Howard v. Pung, 862 F.2d 1348, 1350 (8th Cir. 1988) (“ 'I don’t think I’d better say any more — ’til I have an attorney’ ”); United States v. Fouche, 776 F.2d 1398, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985) (defendant said he “ ‘might want to talk to a lawyer’ ”); United States v. *600 Cherry, 733 F.2d 1124, 1127 (5th Cir. 1984) (“ ‘ “Maybe I should talk to an attorney before I make a further statement,” ’ ” and “ ‘Why should I not get an attorney?’ ”); United States v. Lame, 716 F.2d 515, 517 (8th Cir. 1983) (“ ‘maybe I should get a lawyer’ ”); State v. Moulds, 105 Idaho 880, 889 , 673 P.2d 1074, 1083 (1983) | 1 | 1 |
Donald Wayne Howard v. Orville Pung, Commissioner of Corrections and Frank Wood, Warden, Oak Park Heights Facilitygreen1 sentence1990See, Howard v. Pung, 862 F.2d 1348, 1350 (8th Cir. 1988) (“ 'I don’t think I’d better say any more — ’til I have an attorney’ ”); United States v. Fouche, 776 F.2d 1398, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985) (defendant said he “ ‘might want to talk to a lawyer’ ”); United States v. *600 Cherry, 733 F.2d 1124, 1127 (5th Cir. 1984) (“ ‘ “Maybe I should talk to an attorney before I make a further statement,” ’ ” and “ ‘Why should I not get an attorney?’ ”); United States v. Lame, 716 F.2d 515, 517 (8th Cir. 1983) (“ ‘maybe I should get a lawyer’ ”); State v. Moulds, 105 Idaho 880, 889 , 673 P.2d 1074, 1083 (1983) | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mouldsgreen2 sentences1990See, Howard v. Pung, 862 F.2d 1348, 1350 (8th Cir. 1988) (“ 'I don’t think I’d better say any more — ’til I have an attorney’ ”); United States v. Fouche, 776 F.2d 1398, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985) (defendant said he “ ‘might want to talk to a lawyer’ ”); United States v. *600 Cherry, 733 F.2d 1124, 1127 (5th Cir. 1984) (“ ‘ “Maybe I should talk to an attorney before I make a further statement,” ’ ” and “ ‘Why should I not get an attorney?’ ”); United States v. Lame, 716 F.2d 515, 517 (8th Cir. 1983) (“ ‘maybe I should get a lawyer’ ”); State v. Moulds, 105 Idaho 880, 889 , 673 P.2d 1074, 1083 (1983) 1990See, Howard v. Pung, 862 F.2d 1348, 1350 (8th Cir. 1988) (“ 'I don’t think I’d better say any more — ’til I have an attorney’ ”); United States v. Fouche, 776 F.2d 1398, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985) (defendant said he “ ‘might want to talk to a lawyer’ ”); United States v. *600 Cherry, 733 F.2d 1124, 1127 (5th Cir. 1984) (“ ‘ “Maybe I should talk to an attorney before I make a further statement,” ’ ” and “ ‘Why should I not get an attorney?’ ”); United States v. Lame, 716 F.2d 515, 517 (8th Cir. 1983) (“ ‘maybe I should get a lawyer’ ”); State v. Moulds, 105 Idaho 880, 889 , 673 P.2d 1074, 1083 (1983) | 1 | 1 |
Daniel v. Stategreen1 sentence1990See, Howard v. Pung, 862 F.2d 1348, 1350 (8th Cir. 1988) (“ 'I don’t think I’d better say any more — ’til I have an attorney’ ”); United States v. Fouche, 776 F.2d 1398, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985) (defendant said he “ ‘might want to talk to a lawyer’ ”); United States v. *600 Cherry, 733 F.2d 1124, 1127 (5th Cir. 1984) (“ ‘ “Maybe I should talk to an attorney before I make a further statement,” ’ ” and “ ‘Why should I not get an attorney?’ ”); United States v. Lame, 716 F.2d 515, 517 (8th Cir. 1983) (“ ‘maybe I should get a lawyer’ ”); State v. Moulds, 105 Idaho 880, 889 , 673 P.2d 1074, 1083 (1983) | 1 | 1 |
Ira Nash, Jr. v. W. J. Estelle, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondentgreen1 sentence1990See, Howard v. Pung, 862 F.2d 1348, 1350 (8th Cir. 1988) (“ 'I don’t think I’d better say any more — ’til I have an attorney’ ”); United States v. Fouche, 776 F.2d 1398, 1405 (9th Cir. 1985) (defendant said he “ ‘might want to talk to a lawyer’ ”); United States v. *600 Cherry, 733 F.2d 1124, 1127 (5th Cir. 1984) (“ ‘ “Maybe I should talk to an attorney before I make a further statement,” ’ ” and “ ‘Why should I not get an attorney?’ ”); United States v. Lame, 716 F.2d 515, 517 (8th Cir. 1983) (“ ‘maybe I should get a lawyer’ ”); State v. Moulds, 105 Idaho 880, 889 , 673 P.2d 1074, 1083 (1983) | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robert Kenneth Rich, United States of America v. Larry J. Webergreen1 sentence1988See, United States v. Rich, 518 F.2d 980 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied All U.S. 907, 96 S. Ct. 3193 , 49 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen2 sentences1983In support of his first assignment of error, while conceding that the rule in Nebraska is otherwise, defendant urges this court to adopt the rule of the Missouri court in State v. Haggard, 619 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. 1981), which stated at 51: “Until such time as the Supreme Court of the United States declares clearly and unequivocally that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply to the legislative branch of the government, we cannot do other than what we perceive to be our duty to refuse to enforce multiple punishments for the same offense ari 1983In support of his first assignment of error, while conceding that the rule in Nebraska is otherwise, defendant urges this court to adopt the rule of the Missouri court in State v. Haggard, 619 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. 1981), which stated at 51: “Until such time as the Supreme Court of the United States declares clearly and unequivocally that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply to the legislative branch of the government, we cannot do other than what we perceive to be our duty to refuse to enforce multiple punishments for the same offense ari | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Miller
green
1 sentence2022MILLER Cite as 312 Neb. 17 required by the totality of the circumstances test. 31 “In short,” the McNeely majority held, “while the natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood may support a finding of exigency in a specific case, as it did in Schmerber, it does not do so categorically.” 32 Justice Thomas dissented in McNeely, reasoning that “[t]he rapid destruction of evidence acknowledged by the parties, the majority, and Schmerber’s exigency determination occurs in every situation where police have probable cause to arrest a drunk driver.” 33 The dissent urged the Court to adopt a rule recog | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Jerry Lee Olesen v. Joe Class, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary
green
1 sentence2004In Olesen v. Class, 164 F.3d 1096 (8th Cir. 1999), the Eighth Circuit considered a habeas corpus case which originated in state court in South Dakota in which one victim, a 5-year-old girl, made a statement to an examining physician which identified the defendant as the perpetrator of a sexual assault. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Violet v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
green
1 sentence2003Violet v. F.E.R.C., 800 F.2d 280 (1st Cir. 1986). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Holloway v. State
green
1 sentence2001In its petition for further review, the State argues that Sanchez-Lahora’s evidence is not credible and urges this court to adopt the standard in Holloway v. State, 695 S.W.2d 112 (Tex. App. 1985) (two-judge panel), affirmed on other grounds 751 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Holloway v. State
green
1 sentence2001In its petition for further review, the State argues that Sanchez-Lahora’s evidence is not credible and urges this court to adopt the standard in Holloway v. State, 695 S.W.2d 112 (Tex. App. 1985) (two-judge panel), affirmed on other grounds 751 S.W.2d 866 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Haggard
green
1 sentence1983In support of his first assignment of error, while conceding that the rule in Nebraska is otherwise, defendant urges this court to adopt the rule of the Missouri court in State v. Haggard, 619 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. 1981), which stated at 51: “Until such time as the Supreme Court of the United States declares clearly and unequivocally that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not apply to the legislative branch of the government, we cannot do other than what we perceive to be our duty to refuse to enforce multiple punishments for the same offense ari | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Whalen v. United States
green
2 sentences1983The U.S. Supreme Court in Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S. Ct. 1432 , 63 L. 1983The U.S. Supreme Court in Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S. Ct. 1432 , 63 L. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Barker v. State
neutral
1 sentence1920It is argued that this court has held in Barker v. State, 54 Neb. 53 , and Foster v. State, 83 Neb. 264 , that the defendant may waive the service before trial of a copy of the information upon him, and that if he can do this he can also waive arraignment. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Foster v. State
neutral
1 sentence1920It is argued that this court has held in Barker v. State, 54 Neb. 53 , and Foster v. State, 83 Neb. 264 , that the defendant may waive the service before trial of a copy of the information upon him, and that if he can do this he can also waive arraignment. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.