 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bing v. Drivers Mgmt., No. A-05-1300.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Treating physician's opinion was not admitted in error as treating physician lacked information about employee's prior right knee injury because, there was no evidence to show that work-related accident played no causative role at all and there was no evidence indicating opinion would have changed if physician had been aware of prior knee injury.
|
|||||
| Richmond v. Peterson, No. A-04-1459.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court had not erred when it found subcontractor had valid construction lien; subcontractor was terminated from job, effectively preventing him from completing his work and he had not sought full contract price in his complaint, but rather, sought damages for reasonable value of work performed and material provided and latter was what court awarded.
|
|||||
| State v. Hysell, No. A-05-1043.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a DUI case, the trial court, which enhanced defendant's conviction to a fourth offense, did not err in finding that two exhibits that were introduced pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,197.02 were valid for purposes of sentence enhancement. The exhibits in question served as prima facie evidence of defendant's out-of-state DUI convictions.
|
|||||
| State v. VanDorien, No. A-05-1003.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sentence for driving under suspension fell within limits of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 60-6,197.06 and 28-105(1), and sentencing court applied relevant factors and legal principles in determining sentence. Sentencing court failed to impose mandatory fine under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-106(1) to driving under influence of alcohol or drugs, third offense.
|
|||||
| Velehradsky v. Velehradsky, No. A-05-1130.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, July 18, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based on the lack of communication between a husband and wife, and given the ages of the parties' children, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award the parties joint legal custody and in failing to set specific visitation times.
|
|||||
| Didier v. Ash Grove Cement Co., No. S-03-924.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, July 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because Mine Safety and Health Administration actually exercised jurisdiction, under 29 U.S.C.S. § 653(b)(1), it preempted OSHA and there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether MSHA or OSHA had jurisdiction over accident. Company did not violate duties derived from MSHA regulations.
|
|||||
| Riesen v. Irwin Indus. Tool Co., No. S-05-208.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, July 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee established a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim and the employee's evidence created a genuine issue of fact as to whether reasons offered by the employer for the termination of employment were a pretext for an impermissible termination.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline of the Neb. Supreme Court v. Hogan, No. S-98-1228.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, July 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Clear and convincing evidence demonstrated that the attorney violated Neb. Code Prof. Resp. DR 1-102(A)(1) and (6), DR 9-101, and his oath of office as an attorney where he engaged in highly inappropriate behavior; attorney was suspended from practicing law for an indefinite period and, if reinstated, subject to 2 years' probation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
