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.
7 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1900–1993 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zarp v. Duffgreen2 sentences1993See, also, Zarp v. Duff, 238 Neb. 324 , 470 N.W.2d 577 (1991). *970 Defendants in this case did not comply with the above-stated rule of discovery. 1993See, also, Zarp v. Duff, 238 Neb. 324 , 470 N.W.2d 577 (1991). *970 Defendants in this case did not comply with the above-stated rule of discovery. | 1 | 1 |
Lillian Weiss v. Chrysler Motors Corporation and Chrysler Corporationgreen1 sentence1987See, Weiss v. Chrysler Motors Corporation, supra; Price v. Lake Sales Supply R. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brooks v. Owens
green
2 sentences1964Brooks v. Owens (Fla.), 97 So.2d 693 . 1964Brooks v. Owens (Fla.), 97 So. 2d 693 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
County of St. Charles v. Powell
neutral
1 sentence1954Charles v. Powell, 22 Mo. 525 , 66 Am. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Bryant v. Cedar County
neutral
2 sentences1954In Bryant v. Cedar County, 122 Neb. 853 , 241 N. W. 538 , the court specifically stated that “Counties come within the purview of this principle of law.” The rule announced in the early case of County of St. 1954In Bryant v. Cedar County, 122 Neb. 853 , 241 N. W. 538 , the court specifically stated that “Counties come within the purview of this principle of law.” The rule announced in the early case of County of St. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
State ex rel. Village of Dakota City v. Bryan
neutral
2 sentences1937It would seem that the entire situation here presented is properly within the purview of the rule announced in State v. Bryan, 112 Neb. 692 , 200 N. W. 870 , hereinbefore referred to, which we are constrained to follow as the controlling principle applicable to the record before us. 1937It would seem that the entire situation here presented is properly within the purview of the rule announced in State v. Bryan, 112 Neb. 692 , 200 N. W. 870 , hereinbefore referred to, which we are constrained to follow as the controlling principle applicable to the record before us. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Arapahoe Village v. Albee
neutral
1 sentence1932In Arapahoe Village v. Albee, 24 Neb. 242 , this court held that a registered village warrant was barred in five years from the time it became due. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Proprietors of South Congregational Meetinghouse v. City of Lowell
neutral
2 sentences1900As is said in Proprietors of Meeting House v. City of Lowell, 42 Mass., 538 , 541: “There may be several distinct tenements under the same roof; and tenements are as essentially distinct, when one is under the other, as when one is by the side of the other.” A portion of appellant’s property being used for business purposes, and, therefore, not within the purview and privilege of the statute referred to, we regard it as the evident intention of the legislature that such property is and should be subject to the general revenue laws, as all other property in the state. 1900Cleveland Library Ass’n v. Pelton, supra; Gerke v. Purcell, supra; Proprietors of Meeting Mouse v. City of Lowell, supra; Cincinnati College v. Yeatman, 30 Ohio St., 276 ; Mayor of Baltimore v. Grand Lodge, 60 Md., 280 ; People v. Collison, supra. In reaching a conclusion in this case we do not desire to be understood as holding that all of the property mentioned in the petition, of appellant is subject to taxation, but only that part which is used for other than the purposes contemplated by the organization maintained by appellant. | 1 | 1900–1900 |
Mayor of Baltimore v. Grand Lodge of Ancient Free & Accepted Masons
green
1 sentence1900Cleveland Library Ass’n v. Pelton, supra; Gerke v. Purcell, supra; Proprietors of Meeting Mouse v. City of Lowell, supra; Cincinnati College v. Yeatman, 30 Ohio St., 276 ; Mayor of Baltimore v. Grand Lodge, 60 Md., 280 ; People v. Collison, supra. In reaching a conclusion in this case we do not desire to be understood as holding that all of the property mentioned in the petition, of appellant is subject to taxation, but only that part which is used for other than the purposes contemplated by the organization maintained by appellant. | 1 | 1900–1900 |
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.