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 1983–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Winn v. National Bank of Athens
neutral
2 sentences1983It cites us to cases from several jurisdictions which embrace it, Winn v. National Bank of Athens, 110 Ga.App. 133 , 138 S.E.2d 89 (1964), and V.H. 1983It cites us to cases from several jurisdictions which embrace it, Winn v. National Bank of Athens, 110 Ga.App. 133 , 138 S.E.2d 89 (1964), and V.H. | 2 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2026The Court of Appeals’ minute entry sustaining Jones’ motion stated that the State’s “attempt to file a direct appeal in a criminal case failed to comply with § 29-2315.01.” In support, the Court of Appeals cited State v. Johnson, 259 Neb. 942 , 613 N.W.2d 459 (2000) (Johnson), which it characterized as hold- ing that the “failure to strictly comply with . . . § 29-2315.01 prevents State from obtaining review of trial court’s final order in [a] criminal case.” The State filed a motion for rehearing in the Court of Appeals. 2026The Court of Appeals’ minute entry sustaining Jones’ motion stated that the State’s “attempt to file a direct appeal in a criminal case failed to comply with § 29-2315.01.” In support, the Court of Appeals cited State v. Johnson, 259 Neb. 942 , 613 N.W.2d 459 (2000) (Johnson), which it characterized as hold- ing that the “failure to strictly comply with . . . § 29-2315.01 prevents State from obtaining review of trial court’s final order in [a] criminal case.” The State filed a motion for rehearing in the Court of Appeals. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Jones
neutral
2 sentences2026JONES Cite as 320 Neb. 766 Jones’ motion for summary dismissal before the State’s time to respond had expired. 2026JONES Cite as 320 Neb. 766 should not have been dismissed in its petition for further review. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence2024JONES Cite as 317 Neb. 559 Following the hearing, the district court sustained Jones’ plea in abatement and dismissed the information. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2021We conclude that Jones cannot prove prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. 2021We conclude that Jones cannot prove prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Parmar
green
2 sentences2020We reiterate that we do not adopt a prison delivery rule, see State v. Smith, 286 Neb. 77 , 834 N.W.2d 799 (2013), and State v. Parmar, 255 Neb. 356 , 586 N.W.2d 279 (1998), nor do we hold that a delay in mailing necessarily results in an untimely filing. 2020We reiterate that we do not adopt a prison delivery rule, see State v. Smith, 286 Neb. 77 , 834 N.W.2d 799 (2013), and State v. Parmar, 255 Neb. 356 , 586 N.W.2d 279 (1998), nor do we hold that a delay in mailing necessarily results in an untimely filing. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2020We reiterate that we do not adopt a prison delivery rule, see State v. Smith, 286 Neb. 77 , 834 N.W.2d 799 (2013), and State v. Parmar, 255 Neb. 356 , 586 N.W.2d 279 (1998), nor do we hold that a delay in mailing necessarily results in an untimely filing. 2020We reiterate that we do not adopt a prison delivery rule, see State v. Smith, 286 Neb. 77 , 834 N.W.2d 799 (2013), and State v. Parmar, 255 Neb. 356 , 586 N.W.2d 279 (1998), nor do we hold that a delay in mailing necessarily results in an untimely filing. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Jones
neutral
1 sentence2020The memorandum corroborates Jones’ claim that he submitted his mail containing the poverty affidavit to the prison mailroom - 816 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 307 Nebraska Reports STATE v. JONES Cite as 307 Neb. 809 on a date and in a proper manner and that it was delayed by subsequent official negligence. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Parnell
green
2 sentences2020As in our recent case, State v. Parnell, 301 Neb. 774 , 919 N.W.2d 900 (2018), Jones’ claim of official negligence was sufficient to obtain a hearing at which to submit proof to the court of his allegation of official negligence. 2020As in our recent case, State v. Parnell, 301 Neb. 774 , 919 N.W.2d 900 (2018), Jones’ claim of official negligence was sufficient to obtain a hearing at which to submit proof to the court of his allegation of official negligence. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Cook
green
1 sentence2015State v. Cook, supra. Contrary to the district court’s conclusion, Jones’ motion did not allege only conclusions of fact and law. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1998To the extent that Jones’ brief contains suggestions of violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L. 1998To the extent that Jones’ brief contains suggestions of violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.