Banks v. Heineman
Nebraska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Nebraska Advance Sheets 390 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS Osorio’s failure to so much as allege the necessary elements of relief under the postconviction statutes or § 29-1819.02, we find the district court’s failure to articulate its reasoning inconsequential. CONCLUSION We affirm the district court’s denial of Chiroy Osorio’s motion to withdraw his plea and vacate his conviction. Affirmed. Steven Banks et al., each and all as individuals, property owners, taxpayers, and as supervisors serving districts 1 through 7, all of the County of K nox, and County of K nox, State of Nebraska, appellees and…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- MacKu by and Through MacKu v. Drackett Prod. Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1984
- Peterson v. HancockNebraska Supreme Court · 1952
- Gossman v. State Employees Retirement SystemNebraska Supreme Court · 1964
- Jaksha v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1992
- Steinacher v. SwansonNebraska Supreme Court · 1936
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hara v. ReichertNebraska Supreme Court · 2014
- Equestrian Ridge v. Equestrian Ridge Estates IINebraska Supreme Court · 2021
- State v. LoyukNebraska Supreme Court · 2015
- State ex rel. Loontjer v. GaleNebraska Supreme Court · 2014
- Dowd Grain Co. v. County of SarpyNebraska Supreme Court · 2015
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.