9 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1926–1995 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1995Indeed, in State v. Johnson, 220 Neb. 392 , 370 N.W.2d 136 (1985), the Supreme Court examined federal cases for aid in the construction of rule 801(4)(a)(i) because that rule was patterned after the federal rule. 1995Indeed, in State v. Johnson, 220 Neb. 392 , 370 N.W.2d 136 (1985), the Supreme Court examined federal cases for aid in the construction of rule 801(4)(a)(i) because that rule was patterned after the federal rule. | 1 | 2 |
Haarhues v. Gordongreen2 sentences1993R 35, as that rule existed in 1986. “[A]doption of a rule of another jurisdiction ordinarily requires that great weight be given to the construction of the rule at the time of its enactment by the courts of the jurisdiction from which it was taken unless such construction is violative of some established state policy.” Haarhues v. Gordon, 180 Neb. 189, 193 , 141 N.W.2d 856, 860 (1966). 1993R 35, as that rule existed in 1986. “[A]doption of a rule of another jurisdiction ordinarily requires that great weight be given to the construction of the rule at the time of its enactment by the courts of the jurisdiction from which it was taken unless such construction is violative of some established state policy.” Haarhues v. Gordon, 180 Neb. 189, 193 , 141 N.W.2d 856, 860 (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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Waters
green
2 sentences1959Claimant relies also on In re Waters, 63 Ohio L. 1959Claimant relies also on In re Waters' Estate, 63 Ohio L.Abs. 34 , 101 N.E.2d 815 . | 2 | 1959–1959 |
Mecke v. Bahr
green
2 sentences1966Mecke v. Bahr, 177 Neb. 584 , 129 N. W. 2d 573 . 1966Mecke v. Bahr, 177 Neb. 584 , 129 N. W. 2d 573 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Sproles v. Binford
green
2 sentences1957As was said by the Supreme Court of the United States in Sproles v. Binford, 286 U. S. 374 , 52 S. Ct. 581 , 76 L. 1957As was said by the Supreme Court of the United States in Sproles v. Binford, 286 U. S. 374 , 52 S. Ct. 581 , 76 L. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Pandolfo v. State
neutral
2 sentences1950However, the rule in this state for a long time has been: ‘The provisions of * * * the Constitution should be liberally-construed so as to uphold a provision in a legislative- act which, though not specifically expressed in the title, is germane to the subject-matter, and comprehended within the objects and purposes, of the act.’ Pandolfo v. State, 120 Neb. 616 , 234 N. W. 483 . 1950However, the rule in this state for a long time has been: ‘The provisions of * * * the Constitution should be liberally-construed so as to uphold a provision in a legislative- act which, though not specifically expressed in the title, is germane to the subject-matter, and comprehended within the objects and purposes, of the act.’ Pandolfo v. State, 120 Neb. 616 , 234 N. W. 483 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Spier v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1950The title reads: “AN ACT to provide for reclamation districts; to provide for their organization; to set forth the purposes, procedure and powers thereof; to define terms; to provide the duties of certain officers, boards and departments; to provide a construction clause; and to declare an emergency.” In Spier v. Thomas, 131 Neb. 579 , 269 N. W. 61 , this court said: “The purpose of the constitutional provision limiting a legislative enactment to the object expressed in the title is to challenge the attention of those affected by the provisions of the act and to- prevent surreptitious legislat 1950The title reads: “AN ACT to provide for reclamation districts; to provide for their organization; to set forth the purposes, procedure and powers thereof; to define terms; to provide the duties of certain officers, boards and departments; to provide a construction clause; and to declare an emergency.” In Spier v. Thomas, 131 Neb. 579 , 269 N. W. 61 , this court said: “The purpose of the constitutional provision limiting a legislative enactment to the object expressed in the title is to challenge the attention of those affected by the provisions of the act and to- prevent surreptitious legislat | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Central National Bank v. First National Bank
neutral
1 sentence1931The majority opinion, as finally announced ( 117 Neb. 161 ), merely determined that under the facts presented the federál statutes were applicable and conclusive and as to the construction of which the rule announced by the federal decision cited was controlling. | 1 | 1931–1931 |
Misch v. Russell
green
1 sentence1926Not only that, but, as we have seen, they followed this clause by one explanatory thereof, which is: “There are no understandings or agreements relative to the subject of this contract, that are not fully expressed herein, and no changes shall be made in this contract except by written agreement signed by both parties.” The proper construction of the clause now being considered is so aptly and succinctly stated in Misch v.. Russell, 136 Ill. 22, 25 , as to merit quoting: “By the application of the maxim ejusdem generis, which is only an illustration or specific application of the broader maxim | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.