8 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2018 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. Gibbsgreen2 sentences2017We have held that to the extent Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes17 confer a right to a speedy trial and authorize a spe- cial application to obtain judicial enforcement of that right, a ruling on a motion for absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated is a ruling affecting a substan- tial right made during a special proceeding and is therefore final and appealable.18 We have reasoned that the ruling on 16 See, e.g., State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014); State v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 640 , 828 N.W.2d 496 2017We have held that to the extent Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes17 confer a right to a speedy trial and authorize a spe- cial application to obtain judicial enforcement of that right, a ruling on a motion for absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated is a ruling affecting a substan- tial right made during a special proceeding and is therefore final and appealable.18 We have reasoned that the ruling on 16 See, e.g., State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014); State v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 640 , 828 N.W.2d 496 | 4 | 6 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2017We have held that to the extent Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes17 confer a right to a speedy trial and authorize a spe- cial application to obtain judicial enforcement of that right, a ruling on a motion for absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated is a ruling affecting a substan- tial right made during a special proceeding and is therefore final and appealable.18 We have reasoned that the ruling on 16 See, e.g., State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014); State v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 640 , 828 N.W.2d 496 2017We have held that to the extent Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes17 confer a right to a speedy trial and authorize a spe- cial application to obtain judicial enforcement of that right, a ruling on a motion for absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated is a ruling affecting a substan- tial right made during a special proceeding and is therefore final and appealable.18 We have reasoned that the ruling on 16 See, e.g., State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014); State v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 640 , 828 N.W.2d 496 | 1 | 2 |
State v. Jacquesgreen2 sentences2000See, also, State v. Jacques, 253 Neb. 247 , 570 N.W.2d 331 (1997). 2000See, also, State v. Jacques, 253 Neb. 247 , 570 N.W.2d 331 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dugan v. State
green
2 sentences2018Dugan v. State, 297 Neb. 444 , 900 N.W.2d 528 (2017). 2018Dugan v. State, 297 Neb. 444 , 900 N.W.2d 528 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Sumstine
green
2 sentences2017We have held that to the extent Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes17 confer a right to a speedy trial and authorize a spe- cial application to obtain judicial enforcement of that right, a ruling on a motion for absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated is a ruling affecting a substan- tial right made during a special proceeding and is therefore final and appealable.18 We have reasoned that the ruling on 16 See, e.g., State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014); State v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 640 , 828 N.W.2d 496 2017We have held that to the extent Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes17 confer a right to a speedy trial and authorize a spe- cial application to obtain judicial enforcement of that right, a ruling on a motion for absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated is a ruling affecting a substan- tial right made during a special proceeding and is therefore final and appealable.18 We have reasoned that the ruling on 16 See, e.g., State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014); State v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 640 , 828 N.W.2d 496 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Brooks
green
2 sentences2017We have held that to the extent Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes17 confer a right to a speedy trial and authorize a spe- cial application to obtain judicial enforcement of that right, a ruling on a motion for absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated is a ruling affecting a substan- tial right made during a special proceeding and is therefore final and appealable.18 We have reasoned that the ruling on 16 See, e.g., State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014); State v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 640 , 828 N.W.2d 496 2017We have held that to the extent Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes17 confer a right to a speedy trial and authorize a spe- cial application to obtain judicial enforcement of that right, a ruling on a motion for absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated is a ruling affecting a substan- tial right made during a special proceeding and is therefore final and appealable.18 We have reasoned that the ruling on 16 See, e.g., State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014); State v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 640 , 828 N.W.2d 496 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Alvarez
green
2 sentences2017We have held that to the extent Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes17 confer a right to a speedy trial and authorize a spe- cial application to obtain judicial enforcement of that right, a ruling on a motion for absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated is a ruling affecting a substan- tial right made during a special proceeding and is therefore final and appealable.18 We have reasoned that the ruling on 16 See, e.g., State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014); State v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 640 , 828 N.W.2d 496 2017We have held that to the extent Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes17 confer a right to a speedy trial and authorize a spe- cial application to obtain judicial enforcement of that right, a ruling on a motion for absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated is a ruling affecting a substan- tial right made during a special proceeding and is therefore final and appealable.18 We have reasoned that the ruling on 16 See, e.g., State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014); State v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 640 , 828 N.W.2d 496 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Knudtson
green
2 sentences2017We have held that to the extent Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes17 confer a right to a speedy trial and authorize a spe- cial application to obtain judicial enforcement of that right, a ruling on a motion for absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated is a ruling affecting a substan- tial right made during a special proceeding and is therefore final and appealable.18 We have reasoned that the ruling on 16 See, e.g., State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014); State v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 640 , 828 N.W.2d 496 2017We have held that to the extent Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes17 confer a right to a speedy trial and authorize a spe- cial application to obtain judicial enforcement of that right, a ruling on a motion for absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated is a ruling affecting a substan- tial right made during a special proceeding and is therefore final and appealable.18 We have reasoned that the ruling on 16 See, e.g., State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014); State v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 640 , 828 N.W.2d 496 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Feldhacker
green
2 sentences2017We have held that to the extent Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes17 confer a right to a speedy trial and authorize a spe- cial application to obtain judicial enforcement of that right, a ruling on a motion for absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated is a ruling affecting a substan- tial right made during a special proceeding and is therefore final and appealable.18 We have reasoned that the ruling on 16 See, e.g., State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014); State v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 640 , 828 N.W.2d 496 2017We have held that to the extent Nebraska’s speedy trial statutes17 confer a right to a speedy trial and authorize a spe- cial application to obtain judicial enforcement of that right, a ruling on a motion for absolute discharge based upon an accused criminal’s nonfrivolous claim that his or her speedy trial rights were violated is a ruling affecting a substan- tial right made during a special proceeding and is therefore final and appealable.18 We have reasoned that the ruling on 16 See, e.g., State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288 , 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014); State v. Brooks, 285 Neb. 640 , 828 N.W.2d 496 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.