careful analysis in Nebraska

2003"A careful analysis" of the duties of such boards and commissions "disclose[d] that they have some executive duties to perform, but they deal primarily with special independent subjects removed from the category of executive departments as defined and recognized by law . . ." Id.

1987Knight v. Bd. etc. Employees’ Retirement, 32 Cal. 2d 400 , 196 P.2d 547 (1948), reasoned that state legislators were state employees, and a constitutional provision specifically empowering the legislature to provide for the “ ‘payment of retirement salaries to employees of the State’ ” modified the constitutional prohibition against legislators’ receiving any “ ‘compensation for their services other than that fixed by the Constitution.’ ” Id. at 401-02 , 196 *182 P.2d at 548.

1987Knight v. Bd. etc. Employees’ Retirement, 32 Cal. 2d 400 , 196 P.2d 547 (1948), reasoned that state legislators were state employees, and a constitutional provision specifically empowering the legislature to provide for the “ ‘payment of retirement salaries to employees of the State’ ” modified the constitutional prohibition against legislators’ receiving any “ ‘compensation for their services other than that fixed by the Constitution.’ ” Id. at 401-02 , 196 *182 P.2d at 548.

1987In Ericksen v. Pearson, 211 Neb. 466 , 319 N.W.2d 76 (1982), we made a careful analysis concerning the question as to whether the release of either the principal or the agent thereby released the other, and concluded that it did.

1987In Ericksen v. Pearson, 211 Neb. 466 , 319 N.W.2d 76 (1982), we made a careful analysis concerning the question as to whether the release of either the principal or the agent thereby released the other, and concluded that it did.

1942A careful analysis of the record in this respect discloses the pertinency of the general rule as pronounced in Bush v. State, 112 Neb. 384 , 199 N. W. 792 , in which the court said: “The general rule is that, before a confession may be received in evidence, it must be shown that it was freely and voluntarily made.

1942A careful analysis of the record in this respect discloses the pertinency of the general rule as pronounced in Bush v. State, 112 Neb. 384 , 199 N. W. 792 , in which the court said: “The general rule is that, before a confession may be received in evidence, it must be shown that it was freely and voluntarily made.

1942However, we think the statements do not amount to a confession, but are merely statements against interest, or what may be strictly termed inculpatory statements.” In the case of Fields v. State, 125 Neb. 290 , 250 N. W. 63 , this court held: “Voluntary statements made by an accused to officers, while he is under arrest and in custody, tending to show his connection with the commission of the alleged crime, are admissible in evidence against him.

1942However, we think the statements do not amount to a confession, but are merely statements against interest, or what may be strictly termed inculpatory statements.” In the case of Fields v. State, 125 Neb. 290 , 250 N. W. 63 , this court held: “Voluntary statements made by an accused to officers, while he is under arrest and in custody, tending to show his connection with the commission of the alleged crime, are admissible in evidence against him.

1935In Flint v. Chaloupka, 78 Neb. 594 , it is said: “The indebtedness claimed by the wife represented alleged advancements to her by her father * * * and an inheritance from her father. * * * We cannot say, as a matter of law, that the relationship of debtor and creditor existed between husband and wife when the note was executed and delivered to her. * * * The defense may be true, but it is not shown by clear and satisfactory evidence. * * * If the record contained any written evidence, or testimony of disinterested witnesses corroborating the testimony of the Chaloupkas, we would not hesitate i

1931However, a careful analysis and comparison of the Colorado case with Peycke v. Shinn, supra, induces the belief that there is no real conflict between them.