 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Keef v. DMV, No. S-03-1306.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In the context of charging a fee for handicapped parking placards, Congress did not validly abrogate Nebraska's immunity under the 11th Amendment. Abrogating 11th Amendment immunity under the ADA to invalidate a fee for a parking placard was not congruent to the specific findings of Congress.
|
|||||
| Roth v. Wiese, No. S-04-1117.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to sustain plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress claim because defendant sexually abused plaintiff when she was a child, he threatened her to secure her silence, then, 30 years later, he contacted her by telephone at her home and angrily berated her for reporting the abuse, and repeated the threats.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Neb. Supreme Court v. Freese, No. S-06-512.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In his voluntary surrender of his license to practice law, Neb. Ct. R. Disc. 15, attorney pled guilty to conspiracy to possess and distribute 500 grams or more of a substance containing methamphetamine. He waived his right to notice, appearance, and hearing. Thus, supreme court accepted his surrender of his license and entered order of disbarment.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline v. Shultz, No. S-06-289.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an attorney disciplinary proceeding, an attorney voluntarily surrendered his license to practice law, pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. Disc. 15 (rev. 2001), because he did not contest the truth of allegation in grievances that he repeatedly made false statement to clients.
|
|||||
| State v. Moyer, No. S-05-079.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Restitution order was affirmed because restitution ordered in an amount not exceeding the actual damage sustained by the victim, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2280, was not a penalty within the meaning of Neb. Const. art. VII, § 5 and was constitutional.
|
|||||
| Turco v. Schuning, No. S-05-068.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred in holding that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-118 required that an employee be "made whole" before employer could assert its subrogation interest in settlement from third-party's insurer after employee was involved in motor vehicle accident because under plain language of § 48-118, court was to make fair and equitable distribution of settlement.
|
|||||
| Webster v. Webster, No. S-05-372.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, June 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ex-husband argued that his share of the martial portion of the pension was inequitably low compared to ex-wife's and that trial court should have made an adjustment to correct such inequity, but he retired voluntarily. Thus, under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 42-365 and -366(8), trial court did not abuse its discretion by not adjusting for his pension pay.
|
|||||
| Stednitz v. AP, No. A-05-048.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, June 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of administrator's motion for JNOV was proper because administrator waived issues of testimony of an officer and appellees' expert by not objecting, and refusal to admit post-accident photos of decedent was proper because the one admitted was probative as to identification of decedent's clothing.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
