60 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1899–2021 2 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. Copplegreen2 sentences1989VFW asserts that this instruction is consistent with the “general rule” in Nebraska, namely, “there is no duty on the part of an invitor owner to protect the invitee against hazards which are known to the invitee or are so apparent that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and protect himself.” Bruyninga v. Nuss, supra at 803, 346 N. W.2d at 247 . “ ‘Prejudicial error regarding jury instructions may not be predicated solely upon a particular sentence or phrase in an isolated instruction, but must appear from consideration of the entire instruction of which the questioned sentence or 1989VFW asserts that this instruction is consistent with the “general rule” in Nebraska, namely, “there is no duty on the part of an invitor owner to protect the invitee against hazards which are known to the invitee or are so apparent that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and protect himself.” Bruyninga v. Nuss, supra at 803, 346 N. W.2d at 247 . “ ‘Prejudicial error regarding jury instructions may not be predicated solely upon a particular sentence or phrase in an isolated instruction, but must appear from consideration of the entire instruction of which the questioned sentence or | 2 | 3 |
Wright ex rel. Wright v. Camerongreen2 sentences1949“A judgment will not be set aside because a more accurate statement of the law might have been made than that contained in the instructions, when from a consideration of the instructions as a whole no prejudicial error appears.” Wright v. Cameron, 148 Neb. 292 , 27 N. W. 2d 226 . 1949“A judgment will not be set aside because a more accurate statement of the law might have been made than that contained in the instructions, when from a consideration of the instructions as a whole no prejudicial error appears.” Wright v. Cameron, 148 Neb. 292 , 27 N. W. 2d 226 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Menueygreen2 sentences2000As the reviewing judge correctly noted in his order, it is “ ‘only a prejudicial error, that is, an error which cannot be said to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires that a conviction be set aside.’ ” See State v. Menuey, 239 Neb. 513 , 476 N.W.2d 846 (1991). 2000As the reviewing judge correctly noted in his order, it is “ ‘only a prejudicial error, that is, an error which cannot be said to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires that a conviction be set aside.’ ” See State v. Menuey, 239 Neb. 513 , 476 N.W.2d 846 (1991). | 1 | 2 |
Collection Associates, Inc. v. Eckelgreen2 sentences1993“Prejudicial error results when a pleading is allowed to be amended where the amendment changes the issues and affects the quantum of proof as to any material fact.” Id. at 609 , 324 N.W.2d at 809-10 . 1993“Prejudicial error results when a pleading is allowed to be amended where the amendment changes the issues and affects the quantum of proof as to any material fact.” Id. at 609 , 324 N.W.2d at 809-10 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Dondlingergreen2 sentences1988As noted in State v. Copple, 224 Neb. 672, 699, 401 N.W.2d 141, 159 (1987), quoting State v. Dondlinger, 222 Neb. 741, 386 N.W.2d 866 (1986): “Prejudicial error regarding jury instructions may not be predicated solely upon a particular sentence or phrase in an isolated instruction, but must appear from consideration of the entire instruction of which the questioned sentence or phrase is a part, as well as consideration of other relevant instructions given to the jury. . . . ‘ “ ‘All the instructions must be read together and if the instructions taken as a whole correctly state the law, are not 1988As noted in State v. Copple, 224 Neb. 672, 699, 401 N.W.2d 141, 159 (1987), quoting State v. Dondlinger, 222 Neb. 741, 386 N.W.2d 866 (1986): “Prejudicial error regarding jury instructions may not be predicated solely upon a particular sentence or phrase in an isolated instruction, but must appear from consideration of the entire instruction of which the questioned sentence or phrase is a part, as well as consideration of other relevant instructions given to the jury. . . . ‘ “ ‘All the instructions must be read together and if the instructions taken as a whole correctly state the law, are not | 1 | 2 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences1997In State v. Rodriguez, 244 Neb. 707, 709 , 509 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1993), this court found prejudicial error when the trial judge, in response to defense counsel’s claim that a police officer sitting at the prosecution table was coaching a testifying witness, stated: “ ‘No, he wasn’t. 1997In State v. Rodriguez, 244 Neb. 707, 709 , 509 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1993), this court found prejudicial error when the trial judge, in response to defense counsel’s claim that a police officer sitting at the prosecution table was coaching a testifying witness, stated: “ ‘No, he wasn’t. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Interest of BMgreen2 sentences1992See In re Interest of B.M., 239 Neb. 292 , 475 N.W.2d 909 (1991). 1992See In re Interest of B.M., 239 Neb. 292 , 475 N.W.2d 909 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ryangreen2 sentences1990This issue was fully dealt with on direct appeal and will not be reconsidered here, especially in light of our recent decision in State v. Ryan, 233 Neb. 74, 105 , 444 N.W.2d 610, 632 (1989), wherein we stated that “[s]uch an instruction is not required under our law.” Appellant next contends that the “Death Penalty Statutes *740 Fail to Establish Any Standards As To When Or If A Three-Judge Panel Shall Be Convened In Violation Of The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments To The United States Constitution.” (Emphasis omitted.) Supplemental brief for appellant at 7. 1990This issue was fully dealt with on direct appeal and will not be reconsidered here, especially in light of our recent decision in State v. Ryan, 233 Neb. 74, 105 , 444 N.W.2d 610, 632 (1989), wherein we stated that “[s]uch an instruction is not required under our law.” Appellant next contends that the “Death Penalty Statutes *740 Fail to Establish Any Standards As To When Or If A Three-Judge Panel Shall Be Convened In Violation Of The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments To The United States Constitution.” (Emphasis omitted.) Supplemental brief for appellant at 7. | 1 | 1 |
BERGMAN BY HARRE v. Andersongreen2 sentences1989VFW asserts that this instruction is consistent with the “general rule” in Nebraska, namely, “there is no duty on the part of an invitor owner to protect the invitee against hazards which are known to the invitee or are so apparent that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and protect himself.” Bruyninga v. Nuss, supra at 803, 346 N. W.2d at 247 . “ ‘Prejudicial error regarding jury instructions may not be predicated solely upon a particular sentence or phrase in an isolated instruction, but must appear from consideration of the entire instruction of which the questioned sentence or 1989VFW asserts that this instruction is consistent with the “general rule” in Nebraska, namely, “there is no duty on the part of an invitor owner to protect the invitee against hazards which are known to the invitee or are so apparent that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and protect himself.” Bruyninga v. Nuss, supra at 803, 346 N. W.2d at 247 . “ ‘Prejudicial error regarding jury instructions may not be predicated solely upon a particular sentence or phrase in an isolated instruction, but must appear from consideration of the entire instruction of which the questioned sentence or | 1 | 1 |
| First West Side Bank v. Hiddlestongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Reevesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Meyer v. Moellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Woodwardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Biggs v. Gottschgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Remmenga v. Selkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vielehr v. Malonegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maska v. Stoll
green
2 sentences1961The appellant then in reply has the right, if he desires, of meeting those contentions.’ Maska v. Stoll, 163 Neb. 857 , 81 N. W. 2d 571 . 1961The appellant then in reply has the right, if he desires, of meeting those contentions.’ Maska v. Stoll, 163 Neb. 857 , 81 N. W. 2d 571 . | 2 | 1960–1961 |
Berggren v. Hannan, O'Dell & Van Brunt
green
2 sentences1941Merrill v. Leisenring, 166 Mich. 219 ; Berggren v. Hannan, O’Dell & Van Brunt, 116 Neb. 18 ; 22 C. 1935Merrill v. Leisenring, 166 Mich. 219 ; Berggren v. Hannan, O’Dell & Van Brunt, 116 Neb. 18 ; 22 C. | 2 | 1935–1941 |
Merrill v. Leisenring
green
2 sentences1941Merrill v. Leisenring, 166 Mich. 219 ; Berggren v. Hannan, O’Dell & Van Brunt, 116 Neb. 18 ; 22 C. 1935Merrill v. Leisenring, 166 Mich. 219 ; Berggren v. Hannan, O’Dell & Van Brunt, 116 Neb. 18 ; 22 C. | 2 | 1935–1941 |
State v. Clausen
green
2 sentences2021State v. Clausen, 307 Neb. 968 , 951 N.W.2d 764 (2020) (emphasis supplied). 2021State v. Clausen, 307 Neb. 968 , 951 N.W.2d 764 (2020) (emphasis supplied). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Interest of Joshua
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Dubray
green
2 sentences2018State v. Dubray, 294 Neb. 937 , 885 N.W.2d 540 (2016). 2018State v. Dubray, 294 Neb. 937 , 885 N.W.2d 540 (2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2017The district court rejected the claims, holding that (1) trial counsel’s failure to depose Diane would have been apparent to Williams at the 3 Id. 4 Id. at 925, 697 N.W.2d at 280 . - 581 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports STATE v. WILLIAMS Cite as 295 Neb. 575 time of appeal or apparent from the record, because Diane’s deposition was not in the record; (2) trial counsel’s failure to make an offer of proof or otherwise preserve the record would not have resulted in not guilty verdicts, because there was sig- nificant other evidence that would support the jury’s verdi | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2017The district court rejected the claims, holding that (1) trial counsel’s failure to depose Diane would have been apparent to Williams at the 3 Id. 4 Id. at 925, 697 N.W.2d at 280 . - 581 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports STATE v. WILLIAMS Cite as 295 Neb. 575 time of appeal or apparent from the record, because Diane’s deposition was not in the record; (2) trial counsel’s failure to make an offer of proof or otherwise preserve the record would not have resulted in not guilty verdicts, because there was sig- nificant other evidence that would support the jury’s verdi 2017The district court rejected the claims, holding that (1) trial counsel’s failure to depose Diane would have been apparent to Williams at the 3 Id. 4 Id. at 925, 697 N.W.2d at 280 . - 581 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports STATE v. WILLIAMS Cite as 295 Neb. 575 time of appeal or apparent from the record, because Diane’s deposition was not in the record; (2) trial counsel’s failure to make an offer of proof or otherwise preserve the record would not have resulted in not guilty verdicts, because there was sig- nificant other evidence that would support the jury’s verdi | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Stephens v. Radium Petroleum Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2004Stephens v. Radium Petroleum Co., 250 Neb. 560 , 550 N.W.2d 39 (1996). 2004Stephens v. Radium Petroleum Co., 250 Neb. 560 , 550 N.W.2d 39 (1996). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
McCook National Bank v. Myers
green
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Barry v. Moore
green
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences1995Refusal to Follow Precedent In its order, the district court noted that this court has held that malice is an element of second degree murder and that malice must be a part of the jury instructions, citing State v. Jones, 245 Neb. 821 , 515 N.W.2d 654 (1994); State v. Grimes, supra; State v. Manzer, supra; and State v. Ladig, supra. The district court, aware of and citing binding precedent controlling the outcome of this case, went on to decide this case contrary to that controlling law. 1995Refusal to Follow Precedent In its order, the district court noted that this court has held that malice is an element of second degree murder and that malice must be a part of the jury instructions, citing State v. Jones, 245 Neb. 821 , 515 N.W.2d 654 (1994); State v. Grimes, supra; State v. Manzer, supra; and State v. Ladig, supra. The district court, aware of and citing binding precedent controlling the outcome of this case, went on to decide this case contrary to that controlling law. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Franksen v. Crossroads Joint Venture
green
2 sentences1994Franksen v. Crossroads Joint Venture, 245 Neb. 863 , 515 N.W.2d 794 (1994); State v. Vermuele, 241 Neb. 923 , 492 N.W.2d 24 (1992). 1994Franksen v. Crossroads Joint Venture, 245 Neb. 863 , 515 N.W.2d 794 (1994); State v. Vermuele, 241 Neb. 923 , 492 N.W.2d 24 (1992). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Vermuele
green
2 sentences1994Franksen v. Crossroads Joint Venture, 245 Neb. 863 , 515 N.W.2d 794 (1994); State v. Vermuele, 241 Neb. 923 , 492 N.W.2d 24 (1992). 1994Franksen v. Crossroads Joint Venture, 245 Neb. 863 , 515 N.W.2d 794 (1994); State v. Vermuele, 241 Neb. 923 , 492 N.W.2d 24 (1992). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. McDonald
green
2 sentences1992As said in State v. Menuey, 239 Neb. 513, 522 , 476 N.W.2d 846, 852 (1991), with regard to the misconduct of a bailiff in permitting a discharged alternate juror to intrude into the jury room: [N]ot all errors, even if of constitutional magnitude, entitle an accused to the reversal of an adverse trial result; it is only a prejudicial error, that is, an error which cannot be said to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires that a conviction be set aside. *272 In State v. McDonald, 230 Neb. 85 , 430 N.W.2d 282 (1988), we held that where the misconduct involves only jurors, th 1992As said in State v. Menuey, 239 Neb. 513, 522 , 476 N.W.2d 846, 852 (1991), with regard to the misconduct of a bailiff in permitting a discharged alternate juror to intrude into the jury room: [N]ot all errors, even if of constitutional magnitude, entitle an accused to the reversal of an adverse trial result; it is only a prejudicial error, that is, an error which cannot be said to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires that a conviction be set aside. *272 In State v. McDonald, 230 Neb. 85 , 430 N.W.2d 282 (1988), we held that where the misconduct involves only jurors, th | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Chapman
green
2 sentences1991State v. Hartmann, ante p. 300, 476 N.W.2d 209 (1991); State v. Green, 238 Neb. 492 , 471 N.W.2d 413 (1991); State v. Chapman, 234 Neb. 369 , 451 N.W.2d 263 (1990); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. 1991State v. Hartmann, ante p. 300, 476 N.W.2d 209 (1991); State v. Green, 238 Neb. 492 , 471 N.W.2d 413 (1991); State v. Chapman, 234 Neb. 369 , 451 N.W.2d 263 (1990); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1991State v. Hartmann, ante p. 300, 476 N.W.2d 209 (1991); State v. Green, 238 Neb. 492 , 471 N.W.2d 413 (1991); State v. Chapman, 234 Neb. 369 , 451 N.W.2d 263 (1990); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. 1991State v. Hartmann, ante p. 300, 476 N.W.2d 209 (1991); State v. Green, 238 Neb. 492 , 471 N.W.2d 413 (1991); State v. Chapman, 234 Neb. 369 , 451 N.W.2d 263 (1990); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Hartmann
green
1 sentence1991State v. Hartmann, ante p. 300, 476 N.W.2d 209 (1991); State v. Green, 238 Neb. 492 , 471 N.W.2d 413 (1991); State v. Chapman, 234 Neb. 369 , 451 N.W.2d 263 (1990); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Green
green
2 sentences1991State v. Hartmann, ante p. 300, 476 N.W.2d 209 (1991); State v. Green, 238 Neb. 492 , 471 N.W.2d 413 (1991); State v. Chapman, 234 Neb. 369 , 451 N.W.2d 263 (1990); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. 1991State v. Hartmann, ante p. 300, 476 N.W.2d 209 (1991); State v. Green, 238 Neb. 492 , 471 N.W.2d 413 (1991); State v. Chapman, 234 Neb. 369 , 451 N.W.2d 263 (1990); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Bruyninga v. Nuss
green
2 sentences1989VFW asserts that this instruction is consistent with the "general rule" in Nebraska, namely, "there is no duty on the part of an invitor owner to protect the invitee against hazards which are known to the invitee or are so apparent that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and protect himself." Bruyninga v. Nuss, supra 216 Neb. at 803 , 346 N.W.2d at 247 . "`Prejudicial error regarding jury instructions may not be predicated solely upon a particular sentence or phrase in an isolated instruction, but must appear from consideration of the entire instruction of which the questioned sent 1989VFW asserts that this instruction is consistent with the “general rule” in Nebraska, namely, “there is no duty on the part of an invitor owner to protect the invitee against hazards which are known to the invitee or are so apparent that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and protect himself.” Bruyninga v. Nuss, supra at 803, 346 N. W.2d at 247 . “ ‘Prejudicial error regarding jury instructions may not be predicated solely upon a particular sentence or phrase in an isolated instruction, but must appear from consideration of the entire instruction of which the questioned sentence or | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Threet green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Medina
green
2 sentences1988As noted in State v. Copple, 224 Neb. 672, 699, 401 N.W.2d 141, 159 (1987), quoting State v. Dondlinger, 222 Neb. 741, 386 N.W.2d 866 (1986): “Prejudicial error regarding jury instructions may not be predicated solely upon a particular sentence or phrase in an isolated instruction, but must appear from consideration of the entire instruction of which the questioned sentence or phrase is a part, as well as consideration of other relevant instructions given to the jury. . . . ‘ “ ‘All the instructions must be read together and if the instructions taken as a whole correctly state the law, are not 1988As noted in State v. Copple, 224 Neb. 672, 699, 401 N.W.2d 141, 159 (1987), quoting State v. Dondlinger, 222 Neb. 741, 386 N.W.2d 866 (1986): “Prejudicial error regarding jury instructions may not be predicated solely upon a particular sentence or phrase in an isolated instruction, but must appear from consideration of the entire instruction of which the questioned sentence or phrase is a part, as well as consideration of other relevant instructions given to the jury. . . . ‘ “ ‘All the instructions must be read together and if the instructions taken as a whole correctly state the law, are not | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| State v. Ryan green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Redmon v. State green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| McClellen v. Dobberstein green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| People v. Norman green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Washington v. State green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Rogers v. Brown green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Bryant v. Greene neutral | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Barney v. Orie Cash Adcock green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Burhoop v. Brackhan green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Stark v. Turner green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Sawyer v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n neutral | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Landrum v. Roddy green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Wieck v. Blessin green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Thurow v. Schaeffer neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Long v. Whalen green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Anderson v. Nielsen neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Kelley v. Adams County neutral | 1 | 1955–1955 |
| Chard v. New York Life Insurance neutral | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.