 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| County of Lancaster v. Leonard (In re Estate of Reed), No. S-05-032.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Notwithstanding Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2037, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-2003 provided that the recipient of property subject to inheritance tax was liable for the tax and that there was no time limitation on the collection of such tax; therefore, the inheritance tax due by reason of the decedent's death was not barred by any limitation period.
|
|||||
| Epp v. Lauby, No. S-04-990.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403, court erred in excluding testimony of injured driver's treating physician and another doctor that driver's fibromyalgia was caused by physical trauma from car accident; inter alia, general acceptance of causal link between physical trauma and fibromyalgia was not determinative of admissibility of experts' testimony.
|
|||||
| Hamit v. Hamit, No. S-05-245.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, June 2, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nebraska's grandparent visitation statutes, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1801 et seq. (Reissue 2004), did not violate due process as applied given the clear and convincing evidence showing the paternal grandparents' significant beneficial relationship with the child and that visitation did not adversely interfere with the mother-child relationship.
|
|||||
| Pickrel v. Pickrel, No. A-04-1150.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred by: (1) including retained earnings of father's company as income in calculating his child support obligations when there was no evidence those earnings were "excessive or inappropriate" pursuant to Neb. Ct. R., Child Support Guidelines para. D; and (2) not including wife's projected investment income in calculating her monthly income.
|
|||||
| State v. Chancellor, No. A-05-848.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a fourth-offense DUI case, trial court erred in responding to a question from jury regarding actual physical control of a motor vehicle. Trial court's response, which was impermissible comment on the evidence, removed State's burden of proving that element of the crime and was functional equivalent of directing a verdict against defendant.
|
|||||
| State v. Koch, No. A-05-692.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of child abuse pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-707(1) and to disprove defendant's justification defense pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1413. Sentence was within limits of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 and trial court did not err in refusing to place defendant on probation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2260.
|
|||||
| State v. Murphy, No. A-05-881.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a conspiracy to commit sexual assault of a child case, defendant was not entrapped because, prior to the instant charge, a 17-year-old girl was introduced to defendant for the purpose of having sex, she told defendant that she was 11 years old, and defendant, while masturbating, told the her that he liked 11-year-olds.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. Hollinger, No. A-04-1238.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, June 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pedestrian could not present evidence regarding driver's prior knowledge of persons crossing street where, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,154(1), driver's duty did not apply until it appeared that pedestrian would not yield right-of-way. Expert's diagrams were admissible demonstrative evidence and were allowed to go to jury during deliberations.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
