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.
10 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2025 4 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. Burkegreen1 sentence2016A person commits the offense of violation of public assistance when he or she, by means of a willfully false statement or representation, obtains or attempts to obtain any supplemental nutrition assistance program benefit or electronic benefit card, or any payment to which such individual is not entitled, or a larger payment than to which he or she is entitled. - 751 - Decisions of the Nebraska Court of A ppeals 23 Nebraska A ppellate R eports STATE v. BURKE Cite as 23 Neb. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences2025Lewis argues that the appropriate test to determine whether DUI/serious bodily injury and motor vehicle homicide/DUI are the same offense is the test announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct 180 , 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932). 2025Lewis argues that the appropriate test to determine whether DUI/serious bodily injury and motor vehicle homicide/DUI are the same offense is the test announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct 180 , 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
In re Interest of T.W.
green
2 sentences2024Upon such request and after giving the prosecutor and defend ant the opportunity to be heard, the court may defer the entry of a judgment of conviction and the imposition of a sentence and place the defendant on probation, upon conditions as the court may require under section 29-2262. (2) The court shall not defer judgment under this section if: (a) The offense is a violation of section 42-924; (b) The victim of the offense is an intimate partner as defined in section 28-323; 32 In re Interest of T.W., 314 Neb. 475 , 991 N.W.2d 280 (2023). 33 2019 Neb. Laws, L.B. 686. - 59 - Nebraska Supreme 2024Upon such request and after giving the prosecutor and defend ant the opportunity to be heard, the court may defer the entry of a judgment of conviction and the imposition of a sentence and place the defendant on probation, upon conditions as the court may require under section 29-2262. (2) The court shall not defer judgment under this section if: (a) The offense is a violation of section 42-924; (b) The victim of the offense is an intimate partner as defined in section 28-323; 32 In re Interest of T.W., 314 Neb. 475 , 991 N.W.2d 280 (2023). 33 2019 Neb. Laws, L.B. 686. - 59 - Nebraska Supreme | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Ferrin
green
2 sentences2021The offense of carrying a concealed weapon is committed when a person “carries a weapon or weapons concealed on or about his or her person, such as a handgun, a knife, brass or iron knuckles, or any other deadly weapon.” 28 Under our standard of review, we consider whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found that the machete was “concealed on or about [Lowman’s] person,” as provided in § 28-1202. 29 A weapon is concealed on or about the person if it is concealed in such proximity to 26 See State v. Ferrin, 305 2021The offense of carrying a concealed weapon is committed when a person “carries a weapon or weapons concealed on or about his or her person, such as a handgun, a knife, brass or iron knuckles, or any other deadly weapon.” 28 Under our standard of review, we consider whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found that the machete was “concealed on or about [Lowman’s] person,” as provided in § 28-1202. 29 A weapon is concealed on or about the person if it is concealed in such proximity to 26 See State v. Ferrin, 305 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Collins
green
1 sentence2020State v. Huff, 282 Neb. 78 , 89, 802 N.W.2d 77 , 90 (2011). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Thalken
green
2 sentences2016State v. Kleckner, 291 Neb. 539 , 867 N.W.2d 273 (2015). 2016State v. Kleckner, 291 Neb. 539 , 867 N.W.2d 273 (2015). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Ursery
green
2 sentences1999In United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 , 116 S. Ct. 2135 , 135 L. Ed. 2d 549 (1996), the Court evaluated 21 U.S.C. § 881 and 18 U.S.C. § 981 to determine whether forfeitures pursuant to these statutes violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. 1999In United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267 , 116 S. Ct. 2135 , 135 L. Ed. 2d 549 (1996), the Court evaluated 21 U.S.C. § 881 and 18 U.S.C. § 981 to determine whether forfeitures pursuant to these statutes violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Green v. United States
green
1 sentence1989Deciding Green’s appeal from the second conviction, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court held that “this second trial, for first degree murder placed Green in jeopardy twice for the same offense in violation of the Constitution.” 355 U.S. at 190 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Ashe v. Swenson
green
2 sentences1977To support this contention he relies primarily upon the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436 , 90 S. Ct. 1189 , 25 L. 1977To support this contention he relies primarily upon the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436 , 90 S. Ct. 1189 , 25 L. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.