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.
12 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1914–2025 5 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. Lovvorngreen2 sentences2021In making the assessment, the Nebraska Supreme Court has held that “[w]hile the constitutional right to a speedy trial and the statutory implementation of that right exist independently of each other, we have recognized that § 29-1207 provides a useful standard for assessing whether the length of a trial delay is unreasonable under the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions” and that “it is ‘an unusual case’ in which the Sixth Amendment has been violated when the time limits under the speedy trial act have been met.” State v. Lovvorn, 303 Neb. 844, 852 , 932 N.W.2d 64, 70 (2019). 2021In making the assessment, the Nebraska Supreme Court has held that “[w]hile the constitutional right to a speedy trial and the statutory implementation of that right exist independently of each other, we have recognized that § 29-1207 provides a useful standard for assessing whether the length of a trial delay is unreasonable under the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions” and that “it is ‘an unusual case’ in which the Sixth Amendment has been violated when the time limits under the speedy trial act have been met.” State v. Lovvorn, 303 Neb. 844, 852 , 932 N.W.2d 64, 70 (2019). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wardgreen2 sentences2005See State v. Ward, 257 Neb. 377 , 597 N.W.2d 614 (1999), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Feldhacker, supra. Nevertheless, the length of the delay in this case favors Schmader. (b) Reason for Delay In reviewing the record, it is clear that the bulk of the delay in this case revolved around Schmader’s motion to suppress and his motion for continuance. 2005See State v. Ward, 257 Neb. 377 , 597 N.W.2d 614 (1999), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Feldhacker, supra. Nevertheless, the length of the delay in this case favors Schmader. (b) Reason for Delay In reviewing the record, it is clear that the bulk of the delay in this case revolved around Schmader’s motion to suppress and his motion for continuance. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Hettlegreen2 sentences2025He claims there was “well over a year” of delay 40 State v. Yzeta, 313 Neb. 202 , 983 N.W.2d 124 (2023). 41 Brown, supra note 39 . 42 Id. at 240 , 964 N.W.2d at 693. 43 State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014). 44 Id. at 302, 848 N.W.2d at 595. 45 Brown, supra note 39 . 46 Id. 47 Id. - 798 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PARKS that was “not attributable to [him]” in bringing him to trial. 48 Parks arrives at this number by adding the 273 days that passed between when the information was filed and when his retained counsel first requested a con 2025He claims there was “well over a year” of delay 40 State v. Yzeta, 313 Neb. 202 , 983 N.W.2d 124 (2023). 41 Brown, supra note 39 . 42 Id. at 240 , 964 N.W.2d at 693. 43 State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014). 44 Id. at 302, 848 N.W.2d at 595. 45 Brown, supra note 39 . 46 Id. 47 Id. - 798 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PARKS that was “not attributable to [him]” in bringing him to trial. 48 Parks arrives at this number by adding the 273 days that passed between when the information was filed and when his retained counsel first requested a con | 1 | 2 |
State v. Schmadergreen2 sentences2017See State v. Schmader, 13 Neb. App. 321 , 691 N.W.2d 559 (2005). 2017See State v. Schmader, 13 Neb. App. 321 , 691 N.W.2d 559 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hewitt v. Eisenbart
green
2 sentences1930Opinions of witnesses derived from observation are admissible in evidence when, from the nature of the subject under investigation, no better evidence can ibe obtained.’ See, also, 3 Wigmore, Evidence, sec. 1974; Hewitt v. Eisenbart, 36 Neb. 794 ; Western Travelers Accident Ass’n v. Munson, 73 Neb. 858 .” “Fear” is enumerated as one of the subjects to which the rule of evidence applies. 1914Opinions-of witnesses derived from observation are admissible in evidence ivhen, from the nature of the subject under Hives-. tigation, no better evidence can be obtainedSee, also, 3 Wigmore, Evidence, sec. 1974; Hewitt v. Eisenbart, 36 Neb. 794 ; Western Travelers Accident Ass’n v. Munson, 73 Neb. 858 . | 2 | 1914–1930 |
Western Travelers' Accident Ass'n v. Munson
green
2 sentences1930Opinions of witnesses derived from observation are admissible in evidence when, from the nature of the subject under investigation, no better evidence can ibe obtained.’ See, also, 3 Wigmore, Evidence, sec. 1974; Hewitt v. Eisenbart, 36 Neb. 794 ; Western Travelers Accident Ass’n v. Munson, 73 Neb. 858 .” “Fear” is enumerated as one of the subjects to which the rule of evidence applies. 1914Opinions-of witnesses derived from observation are admissible in evidence ivhen, from the nature of the subject under Hives-. tigation, no better evidence can be obtainedSee, also, 3 Wigmore, Evidence, sec. 1974; Hewitt v. Eisenbart, 36 Neb. 794 ; Western Travelers Accident Ass’n v. Munson, 73 Neb. 858 . | 2 | 1914–1930 |
Ryan v. State
neutral
2 sentences2025V, § 22, which provides: “The state may sue and be sued, and the Legislature shall provide by law in what manner and in what courts suits shall be brought.” We have long held that this constitutional provision is not self-executing and that no suit may be maintained against the State or its political subdivisions unless the Legislature, by law, has so provided. 10 The Legislature has enacted the PSTCA to govern tort claims 9 See, e.g., Ryan v. State, 317 Neb. 337 , 9 N.W.3d 888 (2024) (Stacy, J., concurring); Holmstedt v. York Cty. 2025V, § 22, which provides: “The state may sue and be sued, and the Legislature shall provide by law in what manner and in what courts suits shall be brought.” We have long held that this constitutional provision is not self-executing and that no suit may be maintained against the State or its political subdivisions unless the Legislature, by law, has so provided. 10 The Legislature has enacted the PSTCA to govern tort claims 9 See, e.g., Ryan v. State, 317 Neb. 337 , 9 N.W.3d 888 (2024) (Stacy, J., concurring); Holmstedt v. York Cty. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Yzeta
green
2 sentences2025He claims there was “well over a year” of delay 40 State v. Yzeta, 313 Neb. 202 , 983 N.W.2d 124 (2023). 41 Brown, supra note 39 . 42 Id. at 240 , 964 N.W.2d at 693. 43 State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014). 44 Id. at 302, 848 N.W.2d at 595. 45 Brown, supra note 39 . 46 Id. 47 Id. - 798 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PARKS that was “not attributable to [him]” in bringing him to trial. 48 Parks arrives at this number by adding the 273 days that passed between when the information was filed and when his retained counsel first requested a con 2025He claims there was “well over a year” of delay 40 State v. Yzeta, 313 Neb. 202 , 983 N.W.2d 124 (2023). 41 Brown, supra note 39 . 42 Id. at 240 , 964 N.W.2d at 693. 43 State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014). 44 Id. at 302, 848 N.W.2d at 595. 45 Brown, supra note 39 . 46 Id. 47 Id. - 798 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 319 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PARKS that was “not attributable to [him]” in bringing him to trial. 48 Parks arrives at this number by adding the 273 days that passed between when the information was filed and when his retained counsel first requested a con | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Abernathy
green
2 sentences2023State v. Abernathy, 310 Neb. at 894 , 969 N.W.2d at 881 . 2023State v. Abernathy, 310 Neb. at 894 , 969 N.W.2d at 881 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Lintz
green
2 sentences2021Accordingly, because the statutory speedy trial clock will inform our thinking governing Sailors’ constitutional challenge and because, during the hearing, Sailors appeared to expand his motion to include a challenge under Nebraska’s speedy trial statute, we would now normally proceed to review the district court’s statutory speedy trial calculation. [10,11] The Nebraska Supreme Court explained in State v. Lintz, 298 Neb. 103, 106-07 , 902 N.W.2d 683 , 686-87 (2017): Addressing a claimed denial of statutory speedy trial rights in a motion for discharge involves a relatively simple mathematical 2021Accordingly, because the statutory speedy trial clock will inform our thinking governing Sailors’ constitutional challenge and because, during the hearing, Sailors appeared to expand his motion to include a challenge under Nebraska’s speedy trial statute, we would now normally proceed to review the district court’s statutory speedy trial calculation. [10,11] The Nebraska Supreme Court explained in State v. Lintz, 298 Neb. 103, 106-07 , 902 N.W.2d 683 , 686-87 (2017): Addressing a claimed denial of statutory speedy trial rights in a motion for discharge involves a relatively simple mathematical | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Barker v. Wingo
green
2 sentences2014The constitutional right to a speedy trial and the statu- tory implementation of that right exist independently of each other.29 Nevertheless, § 29-1207 provides a useful standard for assessing whether the length of a trial delay is unreasonable under the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions.30 It is an unusual case in which the Sixth Amendment has been violated when the time limits under the speedy trial act have been met.31 [19] A speedy trial, generally, is one conducted according to prevailing rules and proceedings of law, free from arbitrary, 28 See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S. Ct. 21 2014The constitutional right to a speedy trial and the statu- tory implementation of that right exist independently of each other.29 Nevertheless, § 29-1207 provides a useful standard for assessing whether the length of a trial delay is unreasonable under the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions.30 It is an unusual case in which the Sixth Amendment has been violated when the time limits under the speedy trial act have been met.31 [19] A speedy trial, generally, is one conducted according to prevailing rules and proceedings of law, free from arbitrary, 28 See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S. Ct. 21 | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Loyd
green
2 sentences2014Ed. 2d 101 (1972). 29 See State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762 , 696 N.W.2d 860 (2005). 30 See State v. Schmader, supra note 9 . 31 State v. Trammell, supra note 12 . 2014Ed. 2d 101 (1972). 29 See State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762 , 696 N.W.2d 860 (2005). 30 See State v. Schmader, supra note 9 . 31 State v. Trammell, supra note 12 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.