 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bank v. Neth, No. A-05-500.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A decision to reverse the revocation of a driver's license under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.01 (Reissue 2004) was not upheld on appeal because a driver did not meet the burden of proving that her license should not have been revoked where no evidence was offered to counter the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles' prima facie case for revocation.
|
|||||
| Brandt v. Heil, No. A-05-1189.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly quieted title in favor of the property owner where the owner had openly, notoriously, exclusively, continuously, and adversely possessed the disputed portion of the island for the full period of 10 years and the fence line was the proper boundary line. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,119, the owner was entitled to costs.
|
|||||
| Hayden v. Neville, No. A-05-004.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an action stemming from an automobile accident, the district court abused its discretion in overruling one driver's motion for expenses under Neb. Discovery R. Civ. 37(c) as to some requests for admission because the other driver and the insurer failed to prove that any of the exceptions enumerated in the discovery rule applied.
|
|||||
| Perez v. City of Omaha, No. A-05-460,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a lawsuit brought by injured passengers against a city arising out of a vehicular accident between a truck driven by passengers' relative and another vehicle, a police pursuit as defined under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-911 did not occur, where the officer did not make an active attempt to apprehend the occupants of the truck.
|
|||||
| State v. Smith, No. A-06-676.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, April 24, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prison sentence of 5 to 10 years in a case involving a plea to issuing a bad check was not excessive since up to 20 years was permitted under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-611(1)(a); moreover, the district court considered the appropriate factors, including defendant's extensive prior record.
|
|||||
| Cumming v. Red Willow Sch. Dist. No. 179, No. S-06-025,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The residents' appeal was dismissed where the State Committee approved the school district reorganization plan and the transfer of bonding authority was permitted by the approved petition and plan, and the reorganization was not void; residents did not exercise their right to judicial review pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-413(4).
|
|||||
| Ichtertz v. Orthopaedic Specialists of Neb., P.C., No. S-05-1000,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The employee was not barred from relief, Neb. Ct. R. Pleading Civ. Actions 12(b)(6), on his action to pierce the corporate veil to collect judgment from the shareholder because the employee did not know in the previous action that it would be necessary to pierce the corporate veil in order to collect on the judgment.
|
|||||
| Rose v. Hetrick-Rose (In re Estate of Rose), No. S-06-078.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the items decided in a county court's order were preliminary to a complete determination of the size of a decedent's augmented estate, which was the fundamental issue before the county court and the order did not affect a substantial right, the order was not a final, appealable order under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902.
|
|||||
| State v. Mata, No. S-05-1404,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, April 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant was not denied effective assistance of appellate counsel when his counsel failed to timely file a petition for further review because appellant did not have a constitutional right to counsel beyond the conclusion of his direct appeal.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
