State v. Taylor, 310 Neb. 376

Officers stopped Taylor after seeing his vehicle driving at night with headlights off, cross the centerline, and strike a curb; Taylor was the sole occupant.
Taylor told officers he had fallen asleep while driving and acknowledged taking prescription medications that night (Seroquel and Effexor).
No alcohol was detected on breath tests; field sobriety tests showed impairment and officers observed slurred speech, sleepiness, and poor balance.
A certified drug recognition expert (DRE) opined Taylor was under the influence of central nervous system (CNS) depressants; urine testing detected quetiapine and venlafaxine.
County court convicted Taylor under Lincoln Mun. Code § 10.16.030 (driving under the influence of "alcoholic liquor, or of any drug"); the district court affirmed on appeal, and the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Taylor)	Held
1. Sufficiency of a generalized assignment of error	State: district court correctly affirmed conviction	Taylor: district court erred "as a matter of law" (general claim)	Court: generalized/vague assignment not considered on appeal; must be specifically assigned and argued.
2. Whether "any drug" in the ordinance excludes prescription meds	State: "any drug" uses plain, ordinary meaning and includes prescription drugs	Taylor: DHHS regulation limits "drug" to seven listed substances; delegation bars broader meaning	Court: DHHS role limited to approving chemical test methods; ordinance/statute do not incorporate DHHS list—"any drug" includes prescription medications.
3. Whether evidence showed Taylor was "under the influence" of his prescriptions	State: driving behavior, FST failures, DRE opinion, admissions, and positive urinalysis suffice	Taylor: fatigue or lawful, prescribed use explain impairment; evidentiary objections and policy arguments	Court: viewing evidence favorably to State, a rational trier of fact could find prescription drugs impaired driving ability; evidence sufficient.

State v. Iddings, 304 Neb. 759, 936 N.W.2d 747 (appellate error must be specifically assigned and argued)
State v. Montoya, 304 Neb. 96, 933 N.W.2d 558 (bench-trial sufficiency review; view evidence favorably to prosecution)
State v. Daly, 278 Neb. 903, 775 N.W.2d 47 ("under the influence" requires appreciable impairment of driving ability)
Rouse v. State, 301 Neb. 1037, 921 N.W.2d 355 (interpretation of "any" as expansive—"of whatever kind")
Wilkison v. City of Arapahoe, 302 Neb. 968, 926 N.W.2d 441 (ordinance interpretation follows statutory rules)