6 Nebraska opinions name it 1 courts 1893–1937 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maryott v. State
green
2 sentences1937In Maryott v. State, 124 Neb. 274 , 246 N. W. 343 , the case of Cain v. Miller, supra, is cited with approval, Good, J., saying: “The rule is applicable to the payment of permanent, as well as temporary alimony.” It follows that no relief may be awarded plaintiff in error on this contention. 1937In Maryott v. State, 124 Neb. 274 , 246 N. W. 343 , the case of Cain v. Miller, supra, is cited with approval, Good, J., saying: “The rule is applicable to the payment of permanent, as well as temporary alimony.” It follows that no relief may be awarded plaintiff in error on this contention. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Pflueger v. State
neutral
1 sentence1910We cannot see that the case of Pflueger v. State, 46 Neb. 493 , sheds any light upon this question. 2. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
McCarthy v. Loupe
green
1 sentence1904Loupe, supra. We think the statute a wise one, and that it applies to the case at bar: that the allegations contained in the last paragraph of plaintiff’s petition are not sufficient to relieve him from the provisions thereof; and, this being so, that the petition could not be aided by any averments in the reply; that, not having pleaded the estoppel (if any there were), by reason of the answer and deposit of defendant in the county court, in his amended bill of particulars in that court, he could not plead it in the district court and can not raise the question here. | 1 | 1904–1904 |
Dunn v. Haines
green
1 sentence1895(Dunn v. Haines, 17 Neb., 560 .) While there is some evidence in the record tending to sustain this contention of plaintiff in error, yet a reversal cannot be predicated thereon, since the question whether Sugar had been released, and the effect thereof on the case as to Hanna, was ¡not raised in the trial court by the motion to quash, unless presented by the fifth ground of the motion, which is as follows: “ That there was collusion and fraud between defendant Sugar and the plaintiff herein for the purpose of bringing this action into this court, as will appear more fully hereafter.” The fore | 1 | 1895–1895 |
In re Garst
neutral
1 sentence1893Thus in Re Garst, 10 Neb., 78 , it was held that when a. proper affidavit is seasonably.filed it is imperative on the justice to grant a change of venue, and. the justice has no discretion in the premises. | 1 | 1893–1893 |
Curran v. Wilcox
green
1 sentence1893For this reason we are asked to grant a new trial, and the case of Curran v. Wilcox, 10 Neb., 449 , is cited as authority in support of the contention of plaintiff in error. | 1 | 1893–1893 |
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.