Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 2022–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
County of Lancaster v. County of Custergreen2 sentences2025At oral argument before this court, the Secretary’s counsel suggested that these argument headings provide a sufficient substitute for a separately designated assignments of error section, but we have consistently rejected that suggestion in the past, 24 and we must reject it here. [3] Rather, we apply the settled rule that where an appel- lant’s assignments of error are not properly designated and instead consist of headings or subparts of arguments and are not within a designated assignments of error section, “an appellate court may proceed as though the party failed to file a brief, providi 2025At oral argument before this court, the Secretary’s counsel suggested that these argument headings provide a sufficient substitute for a separately designated assignments of error section, but we have consistently rejected that suggestion in the past, 24 and we must reject it here. [3] Rather, we apply the settled rule that where an appel- lant’s assignments of error are not properly designated and instead consist of headings or subparts of arguments and are not within a designated assignments of error section, “an appellate court may proceed as though the party failed to file a brief, providi | 1 | 5 |
Great Northern Ins. Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omahagreen2 sentences2023Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 308 Neb. 916 , 958 N.W.2d 378 (2021), disapproved on other grounds, Clark v. Sargent Irr. 2023Co. v. Transit Auth. of Omaha, 308 Neb. 916 , 958 N.W.2d 378 (2021), disapproved on other grounds, Clark v. Sargent Irr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Noland v. Yost
green
2 sentences2026Noland v. Yost, 315 Neb. 568 , 998 N.W.2d 57 (2023). 2026Noland v. Yost, 315 Neb. 568 , 998 N.W.2d 57 (2023). | 2 | 2025–2026 |
Mathiesen v. Kellogg
green
1 sentence2024Mathiesen v. Kellogg, 315 Neb. 840 , 1 N.W.3d 888 (2024). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Interest of Mekhi S.
green
2 sentences2022In re Interest of Mekhi S., 309 Neb. 529 , 960 N.W.2d 732 (2021) (emphasizing that such headings do not satisfy requirements of appellate rules). 2022In re Interest of Mekhi S., 309 Neb. 529 , 960 N.W.2d 732 (2021) (emphasizing that such headings do not satisfy requirements of appellate rules). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.