 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hughes v. Omaha Pub. Power Dist., Nos. S-05-1223, S-06-216.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, July 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Omaha Public Power District did not owe duty to warn decedent of dangerous powerlines under One-Call Notification System Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 76-2301 to 76-2330, and did not owe common-law duty; there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether decedent knew about danger posed by underground line when he took action resulting in death.
|
|||||
| Poppe v. Siefker, No. S-05-670.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, July 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Estate argued that personal financial slide calculator and inflation rate on "Post-it" note, found in deliberation room following trial, was extraneous prejudicial information pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-606(2). However, record did not contain clear and convincing evidence of prejudicial jury misconduct, so denial of new trial was affirmed.
|
|||||
| State v. Harris, No. S-06-062.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, July 27, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State's late disclosure of an officer's interview with an inmate was not a violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912 warranting postconviction relief as the report was already known to the defense, the cross-examination of the officer mitigated any prejudice, and there was other evidence showing that the petitioner admitted to the murder.
|
|||||
| State v. Craig, No. A-06-504.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Period of time between May 24 and June 30, 2005, had to be excluded under good cause provision of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(f). Period of 40 days had to be excluded under § 29-1207(4)(b) as a continuance granted at request of defendant's counsel was not error. Defendant did not suffer denial of right to speedy trial, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2221.
|
|||||
| State v. Neb. HHS (In re Emily C.), No. A-06-1408.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The juvenile court did not err in continuing its jurisdiction over a minor under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(b). The fact that the minor had not been truant at a youth rehabilitation and treatment center was not enough to terminate the juvenile court's jurisdiction because the situation at the center made it nearly impossible for her to be truant.
|
|||||
| Sunrise Country, Inc. v. Kleveland (In re Grabher), No. A-06-431.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of the corporation's petitions to remove the guardian as guardian for the resident and to surcharge the guardian were proper because any damages sustained by the resident were not proximately caused by any actions or inactions of the guardian. The resident had died and thus, the issue of the guardian's removal was moot.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
