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 1 courts 1922–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robert C. Guccione v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2021Guccione v. U.S., 847 F.2d 1031, 1037 (2d Cir. 1988). 2021Guccione v. U.S., 847 F.2d 1031, 1037 (2d Cir. 1988). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Hvistendahlgreen2 sentences2000In State v. Hvistendahl, 225 Neb. 315, 318 , 405 N.W.2d 273, 276 (1987), also a DUI case based upon test results generated by an Intoxilyzer Model 401 IAS, we held that “when there is a conflict in the evidence as to what [the] margin of error [of the testing device] actually is, we will affirm the decision of the trier of fact so long as there is sufficient evidence in the record, if believed, to sustain its finding of guilt.” We also noted that the trial court was not bound to accept the conclusion of a particu *979 lar expert. 2000In State v. Hvistendahl, 225 Neb. 315, 318 , 405 N.W.2d 273, 276 (1987), also a DUI case based upon test results generated by an Intoxilyzer Model 401 IAS, we held that “when there is a conflict in the evidence as to what [the] margin of error [of the testing device] actually is, we will affirm the decision of the trier of fact so long as there is sufficient evidence in the record, if believed, to sustain its finding of guilt.” We also noted that the trial court was not bound to accept the conclusion of a particu *979 lar expert. | 1 | 2 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Brown, 305 Neb. at 122 , 939 N.W.2d at 361 (declining to read language of exception “so broadly” that it “would judicially expand” exception). - 36 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 307 Nebraska Reports MOSER v. STATE Applying U.S. Supreme Court precedent and according a broad reading to the exception provisions of the FTCA to a fact pat- tern akin to the instant case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated: “Despite the broad reading given to [the FTCA] section 2680(h)’s ‘arising out of’ language [equivalent to Nebraska’s § 81-8,219(4)], [the section] may not 2020See, e.g., Brown, 305 Neb. at 122 , 939 N.W.2d at 361 (declining to read language of exception “so broadly” that it “would judicially expand” exception). - 36 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 307 Nebraska Reports MOSER v. STATE Applying U.S. Supreme Court precedent and according a broad reading to the exception provisions of the FTCA to a fact pat- tern akin to the instant case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stated: “Despite the broad reading given to [the FTCA] section 2680(h)’s ‘arising out of’ language [equivalent to Nebraska’s § 81-8,219(4)], [the section] may not | 1 | 1 |
State v. Babcockgreen2 sentences2000In State v. Babcock, 227 Neb. 649, 653 , 419 N.W.2d 527, 530 (1988), we stated that in Burling , we “did not intend to . . . rule that as a matter of law a reading of the test results from an Intoxilyzer Model 401 IAS should automatically be adjusted.” We further stated that “[wjhether an adjustment is required is dependent upon the credible evidence in each case.” Id. 2000In State v. Babcock, 227 Neb. 649, 653 , 419 N.W.2d 527, 530 (1988), we stated that in Burling , we “did not intend to . . . rule that as a matter of law a reading of the test results from an Intoxilyzer Model 401 IAS should automatically be adjusted.” We further stated that “[wjhether an adjustment is required is dependent upon the credible evidence in each case.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bear Runnergreen2 sentences1982The instruction then concludes with the approved language of NJI 14.33 (Supp. 1975): “The State has the burden to prove by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the force of the defendant claimed by him as a defense was not justified; there is no burden on the defendant to prove that his act of force was justified.” Reading instruction Nos. 4 and 11 together, it is apparent that the jury was required to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the State had proven lack of justification on the part of the defendant before it could find him guilty of the crime charged. ‘ ‘All the instructions 1982The instruction then concludes with the approved language of NJI 14.33 (Supp. 1975): “The State has the burden to prove by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the force of the defendant claimed by him as a defense was not justified; there is no burden on the defendant to prove that his act of force was justified.” Reading instruction Nos. 4 and 11 together, it is apparent that the jury was required to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the State had proven lack of justification on the part of the defendant before it could find him guilty of the crime charged. ‘ ‘All the instructions | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bjornsen
green
2 sentences1988In State v. Burling, supra; State v. Hvistendahl, 225 Neb. 315, 405 N.W.2d 273 (1987); and State v. Bjornsen, 201 Neb. 709 , 271 N.W.2d 839 (1978), this court merely ruled upon evidentiary facts peculiar to each of those cases. 1988In State v. Burling, supra; State v. Hvistendahl, 225 Neb. 315, 405 N.W.2d 273 (1987); and State v. Bjornsen, 201 Neb. 709 , 271 N.W.2d 839 (1978), this court merely ruled upon evidentiary facts peculiar to each of those cases. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Murphey v. State
neutral
1 sentence1922Murphey v. State, 43 Neb. 34 . | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.