 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| City of Lincoln v. Hershberger, No. S-05-1066.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was improperly granted to two guarantors in a breach of contract action because a city's case was not barred by the 5-year statute of limitations in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-205; the limitations period did not start running until the city sent a letter indicating an intent to exercise the right to accelerate.
|
|||||
| D'Quaix v. Chadron State College, No. S-06-548.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As employer paid balance of workers' compensation award within 30 days after it was entered, court did not err in denying employee's subsequent motion for Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-125 waiting-time penalty and attorney fees and even though credit issue was not raised, employer was still entitled to credit for voluntary payments it made before the award.
|
|||||
| Meaghan H. v. Mark J. (In re Kenten H.), No. S-06-204.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, January 5, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A mother's petition to vacate the decree of adoption stated a claim upon which relief could be granted in that it alleged that her consent was obtained by fraud or duress, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1506(4); the action to obtain relief was timely filed under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-1506(4) and 43-116 and included all necessary parties.
|
|||||
| Canterbury v. Istas, No. A-05-1465.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding that a mother had met her burden of proving a legitimate reason for removal of her child to Texas and that she had met her burden of proving that removal to Texas was in the child's best interests; inter alia, husband's transfer provided a reason to move to Dallas rather than an opportunity to improve his career.
|
|||||
| Henningsen v. Pacesetter Homes, Inc., No. A-05-518.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed trial court's denial of home builder's application to compel arbitration and stay proceedings under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2601 et seq. as builder failed to comply with Neb. Ct. R. Prac. 9D(1) by failing to properly include assignment of error section under appropriate heading in appellate brief and no plain error was found.
|
|||||
| State v. Blair, No. A-06-254.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not abuse discretion by affirming denial of defendant's posttrial motion for discovery of Brady material under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912 because trial court previously granted defendant's discovery motion that specifically sought exculpatory evidence and record contained no evidence that State had failed to turn over exculpatory evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Donald B. (In re Jasmine B.), No. A-06-661.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, January 9, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The juvenile court's decision adjudicating a female child pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(a) was reversed, where the State did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the child's great-uncle subjected the child to inappropriate sexual contact or that the child's great-aunt failed to take sufficient steps to protect the child.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
