opposite rule in Nebraska

2000Id. at 586 , 224 P.2d at 586-87 .

2000Id. at 586 , 224 P.2d at 586-87 .

1982Cited in support of the first proposition is the case of Romine v. West, 134 Neb. 274 , 278 N.W. 490 (1938).

1982Cited in support of the first proposition is the case of Romine v. West, 134 Neb. 274 , 278 N.W. 490 (1938).

1953The correct rule in situations of this nature is set forth in Harris v. State, 24 Neb. 803 , 40 N. W. 317 , wherein we said: “I think it may further be said that the rule adopted by the greater number of courts, both in this country and in England, is, that affidavits of jurors will not be received in any case for the purpose of impeaching or avoiding their verdict, but to this there are a number of excéptions, and to our mind the opposite rule is much more reasonable and promotive of justice.

1947And as stated in Fairman v. Cook, 142 Neb. 893 , 8 N. W. 2d 315 : “Where it appears that a witness had no reasonable time, means, distance, or opportunity to formulate a basis for an opinion as to the speed of a car, the testimony of such witness is insufficient to sustain a finding of excessive speed in the absence of other evidence on the subject.” Of course the opposite of this rule must necessarily follow, that is: ■ “Where it appears that a witness had a reasonable time, means, distance and opportunity to formulate a basis for an opinion as to speed of a car, such witness may express his

1947And as stated in Fairman v. Cook, 142 Neb. 893 , 8 N. W. 2d 315 : “Where it appears that a witness had no reasonable time, means, distance, or opportunity to formulate a basis for an opinion as to the speed of a car, the testimony of such witness is insufficient to sustain a finding of excessive speed in the absence of other evidence on the subject.” Of course the opposite of this rule must necessarily follow, that is: ■ “Where it appears that a witness had a reasonable time, means, distance and opportunity to formulate a basis for an opinion as to speed of a car, such witness may express his

1947The credibility and weight to be given such testimony is for determination by the jury.” Crecelius v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 144 Neb. 394 , 13 N. W. 2d 627 .

1947The credibility and weight to be given such testimony is for determination by the jury.” Crecelius v. Gamble-Skogmo, Inc., 144 Neb. 394 , 13 N. W. 2d 627 .

1928The rule was clearly announced, after elaborate consideration of the cases, in Stevens v. Luther, 105 Neb. 184 , where the case of Walker v. Klopp, 99 Neb. 794 , announcing the opposite rule was disapproved, and the proper rule stated to be that, subject to the exceptions noted, the violation of a statute or ordinance is evidence of negligence, which the jury is entitled to consider in connection with all other evidence in the case.

1928The rule was clearly announced, after elaborate consideration of the cases, in Stevens v. Luther, 105 Neb. 184 , where the case of Walker v. Klopp, 99 Neb. 794 , announcing the opposite rule was disapproved, and the proper rule stated to be that, subject to the exceptions noted, the violation of a statute or ordinance is evidence of negligence, which the jury is entitled to consider in connection with all other evidence in the case.

1903The opposite doctrine seems to have been'firmly established in this state by the decisions of this court in Bigler v. Baker, 40 Neb. 325 , and other cases therein cited.

1894The case of Crews v. Pendleton, 1 Leigh [Va.], 297, s. c., 19 Am.

1889Rep., 282 ; Graves v. Graves, 36 Iowa, 310 ; 2 Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 354, et seq.; Glover v. Glover, 16 Ala., 440 ; Wray v. Wray, 33 Id., 187.) The eases cited in defendant’s brief show that the states of Indiana, New Hampshire, Missouri, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Michigan-, and Louisiana have held to the opposite doctrine.

1889Rep., 282 ; Graves v. Graves, 36 Iowa, 310 ; 2 Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 354, et seq.; Glover v. Glover, 16 Ala., 440 ; Wray v. Wray, 33 Id., 187.) The eases cited in defendant’s brief show that the states of Indiana, New Hampshire, Missouri, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Michigan-, and Louisiana have held to the opposite doctrine.