Legal Opinion

State v. Harney

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided March 8, 1991No. 90-131PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShanahan, J.

Before trial, Daniel M. Harney moved to suppress physical evidence because, as Harney contended, the officers’ search of and obtaining evidence from a vehicle driven by Harney were unreasonable, since the search was not incident to a lawful arrest. After Harney’s suppression motion was overruled, a jury in the district court for Otoe County convicted Harney of possessing a controlled substance, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), a violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-416(3) (Cum. Supp. 1988), which provides in part: “A person knowingly or intentionally possessing a controlled substance [e.g.,…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Sandstrom v. MontanaSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. New York v. BeltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. Estelle v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Colorado v. BertineSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

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

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. State v. MessersmithNebraska Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State v. MorleyNebraska Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State v. FaustNebraska Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Snyder Ex Rel. Snyder v. Contemporary Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.Nebraska Supreme Court · 2000
  5. State v. NeujahrNebraska Supreme Court · 1995

20 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