6 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2002 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 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Noble v. Mandalin
green
2 sentences2002The Noble court applied the above-stated rule and held that the purchaser was not required to present “ ‘testimony as to the value of the property with a dry basement as opposed to the value of the property with a wet basement.’ ” 104 Ohio App. 3d at 14 , 660 N.E.2d at 1233 . 2002The Noble court applied the above-stated rule and held that the purchaser was not required to present “ ‘testimony as to the value of the property with a dry basement as opposed to the value of the property with a wet basement.’ ” 104 Ohio App. 3d at 14 , 660 N.E.2d at 1233 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Styskal v. Brickey
green
2 sentences1998Although the above-stated rule has been the general rule in Nebraska for quite some time, see, e.g., Styskal v. Brickey, 158 Neb. 208 , 62 N.W.2d 854 (1954), the present situation is unique and presents an issue of first impression in Nebraska for one *8 reason: The nonparty third person whose negligence is alleged to have been the sole proximate cause is the plaintiff’s employer. 1998Although the above-stated rule has been the general rule in Nebraska for quite some time, see, e.g., Styskal v. Brickey, 158 Neb. 208 , 62 N.W.2d 854 (1954), the present situation is unique and presents an issue of first impression in Nebraska for one *8 reason: The nonparty third person whose negligence is alleged to have been the sole proximate cause is the plaintiff’s employer. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
American State Bank v. Phelps
neutral
2 sentences1997We applied the rule 372 decades later in American State Bank of Springfield v. Phelps, 120 Neb. 370 , 232 N.W. 612 (1930). 1997We applied the rule 372 decades later in American State Bank of Springfield v. Phelps, 120 Neb. 370 , 232 N.W. 612 (1930). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Scott v. Rohman
neutral
2 sentences1997Acknowledging some conflict among the various jurisdictions, we adopted the above-stated rule, observing, among other things, that to allow a judgment to be garnished in a court other than the one in which it was rendered “would permit one court to interfere with the due execution of process in another tribunal.” 43 Neb. at 631 , 62 N.W. at 50 . 1997Acknowledging some conflict among the various jurisdictions, we adopted the above-stated rule, observing, among other things, that to allow a judgment to be garnished in a court other than the one in which it was rendered “would permit one court to interfere with the due execution of process in another tribunal.” 43 Neb. at 631 , 62 N.W. at 50 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Hill v. Lockhart
green
1 sentence1988First, we note that Painter has not alleged what outcome-altering facts or evidence would likely have been discovered by his counsel had the child victims, their mother, or Sharon Nore (employee of the domestic task force) been independently interviewed. “[T]he determination whether [counsel’s] error ‘prejudiced’ the defendant by causing him to plead guilty rather than go to trial will depend on the likelihood that discovery of the evidence would have led counsel to change his recommendation as to the plea.” Hill v. Lockhart, supra at 474 U.S. at 59 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Drewes v. Miller
green
1 sentence1951Plaintiff cites Drewes v. Miller (La.)', 25 So. 2d 820 . | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.