 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Antonini, No. S-34-060002.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nebraska State Bar Commission properly denied applicant's request for admission to Nebraska State Bar Association because applicant was less than candid in law school application about prior misdemeanor record, and his explanations were less than credible. Further, applicant was not fully candid in his bar application.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline v. Petersen, No. S-06-182.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Indefinite suspension concurrent with a prior discipline was proper under Neb. Ct. R. Disc. 4, 10(I) for attorney that mishandled client funds and neglected client matters in violation of various rules of conduct and his oath of office because attorney admitted misconduct and took steps to modify behavior that led to the imposition of discipline.
|
|||||
| State v. Blair, No. S-05-544.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment of conviction was reversed, as appellant was convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in death of son but evidence provided rational basis for jury to acquit appellant of intentional child abuse and convict of negligent child abuse, but jury was not given the opportunity to consider whether appellant acted negligently.
|
|||||
| State v. Fischer, No. S-06-069.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a certificate about the concentration of the alcohol breath simulator solution was nontestimonial, statements in the certificate were not subject to analysis under the Confrontation Clause, U.S. Const. amend. VI; defendant's confrontation rights were not violated by the admission of the certificate in defendant's driving while intoxicated trial.
|
|||||
| State v. Rodriguez, No. S-04-631.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, January 19, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant failed to show that he was prejudiced by the trial court's failure to strike four prospective jurors under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2006(2) because he did not argue that he would have used his peremptory challenges on any of the jurors who actually served if he had not used them on them prospective jurors.
|
|||||
| MBH, Inc. v. John Otte Oil & Propane, Inc., No. A-05-292.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, January 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the trial court erred in applying the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) to a contract for the sale of business that bought and sold grain, chemicals, and fertilizer, the trial court's determination of damages was not clearly wrong. The U.C.C. did not apply because the predominant purpose of the contract was the sale of an ongoing business.
|
|||||
| State v. Gutierrez, Nos. S-05-979, S-05-980.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not clearly err in crediting the State's race-neutral explanation for its use of a peremptory strike on a juror because she lived in the same area that the murders and attempted murder took place.
|
|||||
| State v. Phelps, No. S-06-226.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, January 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's claim for DNA testing of a victim's clothing was properly denied under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4120(5) since the absence of his DNA or the presence of someone else's would not have been exculpatory; the clothing was exposed to weather and animals for three months prior to its discovery and then it was handled by numerous persons.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
