Legal Opinion

State v. Schanaman

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided June 21, 2013No. S-12-808PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. SCHANAMAN 125 Cite as

286 Neb. 125

established in McCroy, Walocha’s suspension for nonpayment of dues did not render him per se ineffective. VI. CONCLUSION Based on our previous holding in McCroy, we decline to adopt a per se determination of ineffectiveness based solely upon the fact that Vanderpool’s attorney was suspended for nonpayment of dues at the time he represented Vanderpool in his criminal proceedings. We also find that Vanderpool failed to show that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based on specific aspects of his attorney’s actual…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. BoslauNebraska Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Lozier Corp. v. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Equal.Nebraska Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Buckingham v. Creighton UniversityNebraska Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Interest of Krystal P.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State v. StevensNebraska Supreme Court · 1973

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. VanderpoolNebraska Supreme Court · 2013
  2. State v. ChapmanNebraska Supreme Court · 2020
  3. State v. CarrNebraska Supreme Court · 2016
  4. State v. A.D.Nebraska Supreme Court · 2020
  5. State v. CarngbeNebraska Supreme Court · 2014

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API