 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ferer v. Erickson & Sederstrom, P.C., No. S-05-619.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, July 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Shareholders stated claim against corporation for wrongful registration under Neb. U.C.C. § 8-407, and corporation would be liable because of alleged ineffective endorsement. Shareholders' derivative claims against corporation were properly dismissed as they did not fairly and adequately represent interests of company, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-2071.
|
|||||
| Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, No. S-04-1436.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, July 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal from denial of motion for a protective order was dismissed because the district court's order compelling a company to produce documents requested by appellees was not reviewable under the collateral order doctrine.
|
|||||
| Huffman v. Peterson, No. S-04-941.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, July 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a quiet title action, the parties acquired their respective lots from a common grantor, where the lots were originally owned by the grantor in their entirety. Although the grantor drafted the conveyance documents using different language, this fact did not prevent proper application of the common grantor rule.
|
|||||
| Sjuts v. Granville Cemetery Ass'n, No. S-05-124.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, July 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a quiet title action, trustees were not entitled to a prescriptive easement to operate an irrigation system across cemetery property, as such property was quasi-public in nature and was afforded protection from a claim of prescriptive rights pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-1404.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline v. Mills, No. S-02-1085.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, July 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was reinstated to practice law in Nebraska because the parties had stipulated that the attorney had fully complied with the terms of his suspension, and no evidence suggested that he had engaged in the practice of law or that he had engaged in any improper conduct since being suspended for 2 years.
|
|||||
| State v. Keen, No. S-05-945.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, July 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 1998 DUI conviction was valid for the purpose of sentence enhancement because defendant was attempting to collaterally attack that conviction, when inherent in defendant's 1998 conviction was a determination that the Omaha DUI ordinance to which he pled no contest and under which he was convicted was enforceable.
|
|||||
| State v. Moore, No. S-04-1081.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, July 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellant, having previously raised the issue, was procedurally barred from again raising the claim that electrocution as a statutorily mandated method of execution was unconstitutional. Appellant's challenge to the electrocution procedure under the new protocol could not be reached in a postconviction action under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001.
|
|||||
| State v. Stark, No. S-05-070.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, July 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on murder defendant's theory that he was only an accessory to the murder. Any attempt by defendant to show evidence establishing his role as an accessory to the murder would not have assisted him in arguing that he did not aid and abet in the commission of the murder.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
