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.
8 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Reedgreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., Martinez, supra. Our older case law interpreting the residual hearsay exception, however, did not describe the criteria to be considered as “factors,” but, rather, as “conditions precedent to admission.” State v. Reed, 201 Neb. 800, 807, 808 , 272 N.W.2d 759, 763 (1978). 2023See, e.g., Martinez, supra. Our older case law interpreting the residual hearsay exception, however, did not describe the criteria to be considered as “factors,” but, rather, as “conditions precedent to admission.” State v. Reed, 201 Neb. 800, 807, 808 , 272 N.W.2d 759, 763 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Helen L. Huff, Administratrix of the Estate of Jessee Huff, Deceased, Cross-Appellant v. White Motor Corporation, Cross-Appelleegreen1 sentence1993See Huff v. White Motor Corp., 609 F.2d 286 (7th Cir. 1979). | 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. Toney
green
2 sentences2006State v. Toney, 243 Neb. 237 , 498 N.W.2d 544 (1993). 2006State v. Toney, 243 Neb. 237 , 498 N.W.2d 544 (1993). | 2 | 1996–2006 |
State v. Martinez
green
1 sentence2020The State argues that Martinez “failed to comply with the notice requirement [of rule 803(23)], which is . . . ‘manda- tory’ as a matter of law, so his proposed evidence was properly excluded.” 32 We agree. 31 See State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718 , 884 N.W.2d 10 (2016). 32 Brief for appellee at 25. - 532 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. MARTINEZ Cite as 306 Neb. 516 [7] We have stated that in determining whether a state- ment is admissible under the residual hearsay exception to the hearsay rule, a court considers five factors: a statement’s trustworthiness, t | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Oldson
green
2 sentences2020The State argues that Martinez “failed to comply with the notice requirement [of rule 803(23)], which is . . . ‘manda- tory’ as a matter of law, so his proposed evidence was properly excluded.” 32 We agree. 31 See State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718 , 884 N.W.2d 10 (2016). 32 Brief for appellee at 25. - 532 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. MARTINEZ Cite as 306 Neb. 516 [7] We have stated that in determining whether a state- ment is admissible under the residual hearsay exception to the hearsay rule, a court considers five factors: a statement’s trustworthiness, t 2020The State argues that Martinez “failed to comply with the notice requirement [of rule 803(23)], which is . . . ‘manda- tory’ as a matter of law, so his proposed evidence was properly excluded.” 32 We agree. 31 See State v. Oldson, 293 Neb. 718 , 884 N.W.2d 10 (2016). 32 Brief for appellee at 25. - 532 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. MARTINEZ Cite as 306 Neb. 516 [7] We have stated that in determining whether a state- ment is admissible under the residual hearsay exception to the hearsay rule, a court considers five factors: a statement’s trustworthiness, t | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Epp
green
2 sentences2015State v. Epp, 278 Neb. 683 , 773 N.W.2d 356 (2009). 2015State v. Epp, 278 Neb. 683 , 773 N.W.2d 356 (2009). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Castor
green
2 sentences2009State v. Castor, 262 Neb. 423 , 632 N.W.2d 298 (2001) (applying rule 803(23)). 2009State v. Castor, 262 Neb. 423 , 632 N.W.2d 298 (2001) (applying rule 803(23)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. McBride
green
2 sentences2001State v. McBride, 250 Neb. 636 , 550 N.W.2d 659 (1996) (analyzing Neb. 2001State v. McBride, 250 Neb. 636 , 550 N.W.2d 659 (1996) (analyzing Neb. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.