Lackey v. State

Decided October 5, 1898

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1898-10-05

<p>Review of Instructions. The correctness of the ruling of a district court in giving or refusing- instructions cannot be considered here unless such ruling is first challenged in the district court by motion for a new trial.</p>

Relies on Barr v. City of Omaha · Cleveland Paper Co. v. Banks · Jolly v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1898-10-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1952

3 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ragan, C.

¶1Clarence Lackey was by the judgment of the district court of Hitchcock county sentenced to imprisonment in *299the penitentiary for the crime of robbery. To review this judgment he has filed here a petition in error.

¶2There is in the record no bill of exceptions. The motion of the plaintiff in error for a new trial filed in the district court made no complaint as to the ruling of that court in the giving or refusing to give instructions, and the correctness of the ruling of the district court in those respects cannot be raised for the first time here. (Barr v. Omaha, 42 Neb. 341; Jolly v. State, 43 Neb. 857; Cleveland Paper Co. v. Banks, 15 Neb. 21.) The information supports the judgment and it is

¶3Affirmed.