6 Nebraska opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Metcalf v. Metcalfgreen2 sentences2020The court cited Metcalf v. Metcalf, 278 Neb. 258, 265 , 769 N.W.2d 386, 391 (2009), for the proposition that for purposes of § 42-365, “[g]ood cause means a material and substantial change in circumstances and depends upon the cir- cumstances of each case.” The court noted that Martha argued that because the decree of dissolution in this case incorporated a property settlement agreement, it was a “consent decree [that] is accorded greater force than ordinary judgments and ordinarily will not be modified over [the] objection[s] of one of the parties.” However, the court’s modification analy- si 2020The court cited Metcalf v. Metcalf, 278 Neb. 258, 265 , 769 N.W.2d 386, 391 (2009), for the proposition that for purposes of § 42-365, “[g]ood cause means a material and substantial change in circumstances and depends upon the cir- cumstances of each case.” The court noted that Martha argued that because the decree of dissolution in this case incorporated a property settlement agreement, it was a “consent decree [that] is accorded greater force than ordinary judgments and ordinarily will not be modified over [the] objection[s] of one of the parties.” However, the court’s modification analy- si | 1 | 1 |
State v. Elnickigreen2 sentences2017The court began its analysis with the rule that a witness may not express an opinion on the credibility of another witness.33 It concluded that it was error to allow the jury to hear these comments, explaining that “[a] jury is clearly prohibited from hearing such statements from the witness stand in Kansas and likewise should be prohib- ited from hearing them in a videotape, even if the statements are recommended and effective police interrogation tactics.”34 In light of this and other trial errors, the court reversed, and remanded for a new trial.35 Similarly, in State v. Demery,36 the Supre 2017The court began its analysis with the rule that a witness may not express an opinion on the credibility of another witness.33 It concluded that it was error to allow the jury to hear these comments, explaining that “[a] jury is clearly prohibited from hearing such statements from the witness stand in Kansas and likewise should be prohib- ited from hearing them in a videotape, even if the statements are recommended and effective police interrogation tactics.”34 In light of this and other trial errors, the court reversed, and remanded for a new trial.35 Similarly, in State v. Demery,36 the Supre | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Swarthout v. Cooke
green
1 sentence2020Because the prisoners in Swarthout received this amount of process, that “should have been the beginning and the end” of the inquiry into whether they received due process. 562 U.S. at 220 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Grothen v. Grothen
green
1 sentence2020The court began its analysis by citing § 42-365, which provides in part that alimony may be modified or revoked for “good cause” - 32 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports GROTHEN v. GROTHEN Cite as 308 Neb. 28 shown. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Kitchen
green
1 sentence2017The court began its analysis with the rule that a witness may not express an opinion on the credibility of another witness.33 It concluded that it was error to allow the jury to hear these comments, explaining that “[a] jury is clearly prohibited from hearing such statements from the witness stand in Kansas and likewise should be prohib- ited from hearing them in a videotape, even if the statements are recommended and effective police interrogation tactics.”34 In light of this and other trial errors, the court reversed, and remanded for a new trial.35 Similarly, in State v. Demery,36 the Supre | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Demery
green
1 sentence2017The court began its analysis with the rule that a witness may not express an opinion on the credibility of another witness.33 It concluded that it was error to allow the jury to hear these comments, explaining that “[a] jury is clearly prohibited from hearing such statements from the witness stand in Kansas and likewise should be prohib- ited from hearing them in a videotape, even if the statements are recommended and effective police interrogation tactics.”34 In light of this and other trial errors, the court reversed, and remanded for a new trial.35 Similarly, in State v. Demery,36 the Supre | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Demery
green
1 sentence2017The court began its analysis with the rule that a witness may not express an opinion on the credibility of another witness.33 It concluded that it was error to allow the jury to hear these comments, explaining that “[a] jury is clearly prohibited from hearing such statements from the witness stand in Kansas and likewise should be prohib- ited from hearing them in a videotape, even if the statements are recommended and effective police interrogation tactics.”34 In light of this and other trial errors, the court reversed, and remanded for a new trial.35 Similarly, in State v. Demery,36 the Supre | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Rocha
green
1 sentence2017The court began its analysis with the rule that a witness may not express an opinion on the credibility of another witness.33 It concluded that it was error to allow the jury to hear these comments, explaining that “[a] jury is clearly prohibited from hearing such statements from the witness stand in Kansas and likewise should be prohib- ited from hearing them in a videotape, even if the statements are recommended and effective police interrogation tactics.”34 In light of this and other trial errors, the court reversed, and remanded for a new trial.35 Similarly, in State v. Demery,36 the Supre | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Sweet v. State
green
1 sentence2017The court began its analysis with the rule that a witness may not express an opinion on the credibility of another witness.33 It concluded that it was error to allow the jury to hear these comments, explaining that “[a] jury is clearly prohibited from hearing such statements from the witness stand in Kansas and likewise should be prohib- ited from hearing them in a videotape, even if the statements are recommended and effective police interrogation tactics.”34 In light of this and other trial errors, the court reversed, and remanded for a new trial.35 Similarly, in State v. Demery,36 the Supre | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2003The Court began its analysis with the premise, derived from the Arizona Supreme Court’s construction of that state’s capital sentencing laws, that “[bjased solely on the jury’s verdict finding Ring guilty of first-degree felony murder, the maximum punishment he could have received was life imprisonment.” Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 597 , 122 S. Ct. 2428 , 153 L. 2003The Court began its analysis with the premise, derived from the Arizona Supreme Court’s construction of that state’s capital sentencing laws, that “[bjased solely on the jury’s verdict finding Ring guilty of first-degree felony murder, the maximum punishment he could have received was life imprisonment.” Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 597 , 122 S. Ct. 2428 , 153 L. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Cabana v. Bullock
green
2 sentences2003The Court began its analysis by noting that neither the Mississippi jury’s verdict of guilt nor its sentence of death “necessarily reflected] a finding that Bullock *614 killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill.” Cabana, 474 U.S. at 383 . 2003Although the Court determined that the Mississippi court would be required to make the Enmund determination in order for the death sentence to stand, it concluded that “[t]he proceeding that the state courts must provide Bullock need not take the form of a new sentencing hearing before a jury.” Cabana, 474 U.S. at 392 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Iowa Telephone Ass'n v. City of Hawarden
green
1 sentence2003In that case, the court began its analysis with the “plain-statement rule” derived from Gregory, supra, that “the courts will not interpret a federal statute in such a way as to intrude upon an area traditionally regulated by the states absent a clear expression of congressional intent to do so.” City of Hawarden, 589 N.W.2d at 251 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Carroll v. United States
green
2 sentences1990The Court began its analysis by reiterating the rule in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S. Ct. 280 , 69 L. 1990The Court began its analysis by reiterating the rule in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S. Ct. 280 , 69 L. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.