6 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gerbergreen2 sentences1985See State v. Gerber, 206 Neb. 75 , 291 N.W.2d 403 (1980). 1985See State v. Gerber, 206 Neb. 75 , 291 N.W.2d 403 (1980). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hittgreen2 sentences2018See, for example, State v. Hitt, 207 Neb. 746 , 301 N.W.2d 96 (1981) (evidence that defendant struck child sexual assault victim with paddle and hit younger sibling on knees with hammer was properly received to establish children were genuinely afraid of defendant, thereby explaining their failure to make prompt complaint). 2018See, for example, State v. Hitt, 207 Neb. 746 , 301 N.W.2d 96 (1981) (evidence that defendant struck child sexual assault victim with paddle and hit younger sibling on knees with hammer was properly received to establish children were genuinely afraid of defendant, thereby explaining their failure to make prompt complaint). | 1 | 1 |
Barna v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen1 sentence2004See Barna v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 508 N.W.2d 220 (Minn. App. 1993). *420 Thus, it is unnecessary that Morris be personally familiar with the manner in which Fisher Scientific manufactures or supplies calibration substances or standards. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
White v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2000I conclude that the Barnett statement was offered as "witness" testimony against the defendant for Confrontation Clause purposes, White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Thomas, J., concurring in part, and concurring in judgment; Scalia, J., joins), and I understand that the trustworthiness of the statement is the focus of the admissibility analysis of the majority. 2000I conclude that the Barnett statement was offered as "witness" testimony against the defendant for Confrontation Clause purposes, White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 , 112 S.Ct. 736 , 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992) (Thomas, J., concurring in part, and concurring in judgment; Scalia, J., joins), and I understand that the trustworthiness of the statement is the focus of the admissibility analysis of the majority. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Frye v. United States
red
2 sentences1994Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Daubert , it was well established in Nebraska that the Frye test, as established in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. 1994Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in Daubert , it was well established in Nebraska that the Frye test, as established in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), was the appropriate test to use in determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.