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.
6 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
FATHER FLANAGAN'S BOYS'HOME v. Agnewgreen2 sentences2017See Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home v. Agnew, 256 Neb. 394 , 590 N.W.2d 688 (1999). 2017See Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home v. Agnew, 256 Neb. 394 , 590 N.W.2d 688 (1999). | 3 | 3 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Greengreen2 sentences2005See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S. Ct. 1817 , 36 L. 2005See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S. Ct. 1817 , 36 L. | 3 | 3 |
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdinegreen2 sentences1999Ed. 2d 407 (1993), has analyzed and discussed the employer’s burden, with the following explanation: [T]he McDonnell Douglas presumption places upon the defendant the burden of producing an explanation to rebut the prima facie case — i. e., the burden of “producing evidence” that the adverse employment actions were taken “for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.” [Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v.] Burdine, 450 U.S. [248,] 254[, 101 S. Ct. 1089 , 67 L. 1999Ed. 2d 407 (1993), has analyzed and discussed the employer’s burden, with the following explanation: [T]he McDonnell Douglas presumption places upon the defendant the burden of producing an explanation to rebut the prima facie case — i. e., the burden of “producing evidence” that the adverse employment actions were taken “for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.” [Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v.] Burdine, 450 U.S. [248,] 254[, 101 S. Ct. 1089 , 67 L. | 1 | 2 |
Smith v. F.W. Morse Co., Inc.green2 sentences1999Morse & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 413, 421 (1st Cir.1996). 1999Morse & Co., Inc., 76 F.3d 413, 421 (1st Cir.1996). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks
green
2 sentences1999Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993), has analyzed and discussed the employer's burden, with the following explanation: *694 [T]he McDonnell Douglas presumption places upon the defendant the burden of producing an explanation to rebut the prima facie case— i.e., the burden of "producing evidence" that the adverse employment actions were taken "for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason." [Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v.] Burdine, 450 U.S. [248,] 254[, 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) ]. "[T]he defendant must clearly set forth, t 1999Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506-07 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993), has analyzed and discussed the employer's burden, with the following explanation: *694 [T]he McDonnell Douglas presumption places upon the defendant the burden of producing an explanation to rebut the prima facie case— i.e., the burden of "producing evidence" that the adverse employment actions were taken "for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason." [Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v.] Burdine, 450 U.S. [248,] 254[, 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) ]. "[T]he defendant must clearly set forth, t | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.