Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2023 2 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. Hendersongreen2 sentences2023Accord State v. Stricklin, supra. State v. Henderson, 301 Neb. at 641 , 920 N.W.2d at 257 . 2023Accord State v. Stricklin, supra. State v. Henderson, 301 Neb. at 641 , 920 N.W.2d at 257 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sandersgreen1 sentence2015To do so, the State would have to argue not only that a dis- covery violation actually occurred, but also that exclusion of defense witnesses was an appropriate sanction in light of the compulsory process rights of the defendant to present wit- nesses in his or her own defense.23 The State does not make such arguments. [10] Rather, the State argues that counsel’s performance did not prejudice Armstrong because the testimony of Armstrong’s wife and son-in-law would have been cumulative to the 22 State v. Poe, supra note 14, 284 Neb. at 774-75, 822 N.W.2d at 849, quoting Strickland v. Washington | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fernando-Granadosgreen1 sentence2015See id. -4- (a) Characterization of O’Connell Ruegge first based his request for postconviction relief on an assertion that his appellate counsel had been ineffective for failing to specifically assign and argue that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s characterization of O’Connell as an informant during voir dire, rather than as an accomplice. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Oteygreen2 sentences1984In State v. Otey, 212 Neb. 103 , *874 105-06, 321 N.W.2d 453, 454-55 (1982), we said: “Nebraska employs a two-part test for determining whether an attorney has effectively counseled a criminal defendant. 1984In State v. Otey, 212 Neb. 103 , *874 105-06, 321 N.W.2d 453, 454-55 (1982), we said: “Nebraska employs a two-part test for determining whether an attorney has effectively counseled a criminal defendant. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2023Taking the unaffected findings as a given, and taking due account of the effect of the errors on the remaining findings, a court making the prejudice inquiry must ask if the defendant has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors. 466 U.S. at 695-96 . 1997(Emphasis supplied.) 466 U.S. at 695-96 . *942 For the purposes of our analysis, we assume that Boppre could prove that the subject jeans would have fit Wasmer, and would not have fit Boppre or Niemann, and that the jeans were found in the Wasmer/Niemann trailer. | 2 | 1997–2023 |
State v. Newman
green
1 sentence2018Taking the unaffected findings as a given, and taking due account - 783 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports STATE v. NEWMAN Cite as 300 Neb. 770 of the effect of the errors on the remaining findings, a court making the prejudice inquiry must ask if the defendant has met the burden of showing that the deci- sion reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors.34 Considering the alleged testimony of these eight potential witnesses in the context of all the evidence adduced at trial, we conclude the alleged testimony would not have altered the evid | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Alaska Steamship Co. v. Petterson
green
1 sentence2015To do so, the State would have to argue not only that a dis- covery violation actually occurred, but also that exclusion of defense witnesses was an appropriate sanction in light of the compulsory process rights of the defendant to present wit- nesses in his or her own defense.23 The State does not make such arguments. [10] Rather, the State argues that counsel’s performance did not prejudice Armstrong because the testimony of Armstrong’s wife and son-in-law would have been cumulative to the 22 State v. Poe, supra note 14, 284 Neb. at 774-75, 822 N.W.2d at 849, quoting Strickland v. Washington | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Taylor v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2015To do so, the State would have to argue not only that a dis- covery violation actually occurred, but also that exclusion of defense witnesses was an appropriate sanction in light of the compulsory process rights of the defendant to present wit- nesses in his or her own defense.23 The State does not make such arguments. [10] Rather, the State argues that counsel’s performance did not prejudice Armstrong because the testimony of Armstrong’s wife and son-in-law would have been cumulative to the 22 State v. Poe, supra note 14, 284 Neb. at 774-75, 822 N.W.2d at 849, quoting Strickland v. Washington 2015To do so, the State would have to argue not only that a dis- covery violation actually occurred, but also that exclusion of defense witnesses was an appropriate sanction in light of the compulsory process rights of the defendant to present wit- nesses in his or her own defense.23 The State does not make such arguments. [10] Rather, the State argues that counsel’s performance did not prejudice Armstrong because the testimony of Armstrong’s wife and son-in-law would have been cumulative to the 22 State v. Poe, supra note 14, 284 Neb. at 774-75, 822 N.W.2d at 849, quoting Strickland v. Washington | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.