 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Banks v. Midwest Padding, L.L.C., No. A-06-074.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, August 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in denying workers' compensation benefits after relying on forensic pathologist's postaccident drug screen test report revealing 183 nanograms of marijuana metabolite in employee's urine to show employee was intoxicated at time of accident pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-127 and 48-151 and that intoxication caused his injury.
|
|||||
| Forgey v. Neb. DMV, No. A-04-1088.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, August 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a driver's license revocation case, a sworn report prepared by the arresting officer was not invalid merely because it was received one day late by the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles. The 10-day time limit for filing the sworn report set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-498.01(2) was directory rather than mandatory.
|
|||||
| Lundy v. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co., No. A-05-034.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, August 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in granting insurer's motion to disqualify insured's counsel under Neb. Code Prof. Resp. DR 3.7(b) as attorney was likely to testify as a witness in the bad faith action, but it erred in granting the motion as to disqualification of attorney's law firm as another lawyer from the firm could have acted as an advocate in the trial.
|
|||||
| State v. Portsche, No. A-05-1418.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, August 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to inform the jury of the context of defendant's out-of-court admissions was not prejudicial. Rather, the fact that the State did not present the context of defendant's statements led to the conclusion that the county court did not err in overruling defendant's objections to his admissions under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403.
|
|||||
| State v. Schmutz, Nos. A-05-1141, A-05-1142.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, August 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant, who pleaded no contest to attempted burglary and theft by deception, was not entitled to credit for time served under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,106, where the jail time served by defendant in a drug possession case was unrelated to the two cases for which he was sentenced.
|
|||||
| State v. Yvonne W. (In re Stephanie G.), No. A-06-194.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, August 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there was clear and convincing evidence that a mother's child had been in an out-of-home placement for 15 of the most recent 22 months, termination of the mother's parental rights was proper under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-292(7). Termination of the mother's parental rights was also in the child's best interests.
|
|||||
| Weston v. Cont'l Western Ins. Co., No. A-04-1185.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, August 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 44-6410 and -6411 prohibited stacking of uninsured motorist coverages and provided that maximum recovery the insured was entitled to was the highest limit of any one applicable policy; therefore, because insured had already received maximum recovery from one policy, trial court properly granted summary judgment to second insurer.
|
|||||
| Wineteer v. Wineteer, No. A-05-042.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, August 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in failing to render money judgment in favor of wife and against husband for $ 51,587 for her 50% portion of her husband's military retirement pay because court gave him credit of $ 17,480; he was not entitled to a credit against amount owed just because he had been voluntarily paying increased amount of "traditional" alimony.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
