The judgment of the court in any action taken pursuant to section 29-2315.01 shall not be reversed nor in any manner affected when the defendant in the trial court has been placed legally in jeopardy, but in such cases the decision of the appellate court shall determine the law to govern in any similar case which may be pending at the time the decision is rendered or which may thereafter arise in the state. When the decision of the appellate court establishes that the final order of the trial court was erroneous and the defendant had not been placed legally in jeopardy prior to the entry of such erroneous order, the trial court may upon application of the prosecuting attorney issue its warrant for the rearrest of the defendant and the cause against him or her shall thereupon proceed in accordance with the law as determined by the decision of the appellate court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
60
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1932–2026 · leading case:
State v. Thalken, 299 Neb. 857 (Neb. 2018).
State v. Thalken, 299 Neb. 857 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 43× “We sustain the State's exception and conclude that because Thalken was not placed legally in jeopardy by the district court sitting as an appellate court, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2316 (Reissue 2016) does not prevent us from reversing the district court's decision with directions to…”
State v. Hense, 753 N.W.2d 832 (Neb. 2008).
· cites it 30× “01 and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2316 (Cum. Supp. 2006), we conclude that Hense's sentence is not affected by our decision in this error proceeding.”
State v. Figeroa, 767 N.W.2d 775 (Neb. 2009).
· cites it 17× “[5] [4] Because the State brought this appeal as an error proceeding, disposition of this case is governed by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2316 (Reissue 2008). Section 29-2316 provides: The judgment of the court in any action taken pursuant to section 29-2315.”
State v. Vasquez, 716 N.W.2d 443 (Neb. 2006).
· cites it 8× “Disposition of the case is therefore governed by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2316 (Cum. Supp. 2004).”
State v. Jedlicka, 305 Neb. 52 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 7× “Application of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2316 (Reissue 2016) by its terms turns on whether the defendant has been placed in jeopardy in the trial court, not by whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further action.”
State v. Stanko, 304 Neb. 675 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 7× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2316 (Reissue 2016) limits the relief an appellate court can afford, even if the exception taken by the State is sustained.”
State v. Taylor, 136 N.W.2d 179 (Neb. 1965).
· cites it 11× “) Section 29-2316, R. R. S. 1943, provides as follows: “The judgment of the court in any action taken under the provisions of this act shall not be reversed nor in any manner affected where the defendant in the trial court has been placed legally in jeopardy, but in such cases…”
State v. Neiss, 619 N.W.2d 222 (Neb. 2000).
· cites it 9× “*696 We have addressed the meaning of being “placed legally in jeopardy” in analyzing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2316 (Reissue 1995) in the context of resentencing proceedings after a reversal by an appellate court.”
State v. Hatfield, 300 Neb. 152 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 8× “Because it was brought as an exception proceeding, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2316 (Reissue 2016) applies.”
State v. Rossbach, 650 N.W.2d 242 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 3× “We agree, and remand this cause to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2316 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Falcon, 615 N.W.2d 436 (Neb. 2000).
· cites it 6× “The scope and purpose of appellate review in error proceedings are defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2316 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Detweiler, 544 N.W.2d 83 (Neb. 1996).
· cites it 4× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2316 (Cum. Supp. 1994), the judgment of the court in any action taken under § 29-2315.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.