 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Alston v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. S-05-1488,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in finding complaint filed in October 2003 was time barred by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207; there was issue of material fact with respect to whether plaintiff was injured by a continuing tort occurring within the statutory limitations period, that was, between October 23, 1999, and the last date of plaintiff's employment in November 1999.
|
|||||
| City of Gordon v. Mont. Feeders, Corp., No. S-05-1214,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order holding corporation in willful contempt and entering judgment against it was upheld where corporation failed to provide an appellate brief that was in compliance with Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 9D(1)e. Brief did not comply with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1919 because it did not set out any errors; brief identified issues that it asked court to consider.
|
|||||
| Coral Prod. Corp. v. Cent. Res., Inc., No. S-05-564,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In dispute among oil and gas companies with fractional working interests and gas assets under a joint operating agreement (JOA), district court did not err in determining that the sale of all of the oil and gas assets fell within the parties' typewritten exception to preprinted preferential-right-to-purchase provision of JOA.
|
|||||
| Finney v. Finney, No. S-06-001,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Modification of the wife's alimony award was reversed because the district court expressly rejected the husband's arguments and concluded that the circumstances of the parties were unchanged, and considering the financial circumstance of the parties, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the wife's request for attorney fees.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. A.E. v. Buckhalter, No. S-06-693,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Alleged father, a professional athlete, was found to be child's father by default under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1412(2). Father was ordered to pay child support. Trial court was not obligated to accept results of father's private genetic test because the test was unverified. Trial court used appropriate measure of income to determine child support.
|
|||||
| State v. Hernandez, No. S-06-745,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was on probation for drug charges. He was not denied prompt consideration of his probation revocation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2267 because, although he was not sentenced until nearly a year after his term of probation expired, lengthy delay was reasonable because he was incarcerated in Arizona. Also, his sentence of was not excessive.
|
|||||
| Zwygart v. State Bd. of Pub. Accountancy , No. S-05-1457,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, April 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Accountant's dishonesty and fraud on his business associates reflected adversely on his fitness to practice as a CPA. Thus, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 1-137(2), (4), Nebraska State Board of Public Accountancy properly revoked accountant's license to practice as a CPA. Also, there was no error in awarding attorney fees and expenses incurred by Board.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
