 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Jessen v. Uhler, No. A-04-1428.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, September 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court had not erred in awarding a judgment in the amount of $ 70,750 in favor of husband and determining that wife was responsible for the debt as dissolution court would not have reduced the value of the asset which was being awarded to the wife to account for the debt unless it had intended that wife was to be responsible for the debt.
|
|||||
| Rosen Auto Leasing, Inc. v. Jordan, No. A-05-477.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, September 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Leasing corporation sought to have county court issue a capias for arrest of lessee. District court's order affirming county court's denial was void because county court failed to file stamp order, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1301. Although defect was cured, corporation failed to file notice of appeal; appellate court lacked jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| State v. Schmader, No. A-05-982.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, September 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because no bill of exceptions containing defendant's sentencing hearing was prepared, as required under Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 5B, and because defendant raised on appeal the propriety of the sentencing hearing, the record on appeal was inadequate through no fault of defendant, and the case was remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
|
|||||
| State v. Vela, No. S-06-595.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, September 8, 2006 Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an order overruling defendant's motion under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105.01(4) to preclude the death penalty because of mental retardation neither affected a substantial right nor was made in a special proceeding, the order was not a final, appealable order. Therefore, defendant's appeal of the order was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Snowden v. Helget Gas Prods., No. A-05-1478.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of widow's workers' compensation claim was reversed as reasonable employer had notice or knowledge that deceased's injury was potentially compensable and that employer should have investigated matter that satisfied notice requirement of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-133; trial judge failed to render decision under Neb. Workers' Comp. Ct. R. P. 11.
|
|||||
| State v. Muse, No. A-05-947.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sexual assault, robbery, and deadly weapon convictions were proper because it was presumed that the deputy clerk performed her duties required under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-2205 and 25-2206 and endorsed the second amended information with the date that it was presented to her for filing.
|
|||||
| State v. Russo, No. A-06-172.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, September 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case in which the State appealed pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-824 an order granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence, information which an officer developed during a traffic stop did not support a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant was involved in illegal activity to justify detaining him after the stop was complete.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Lemon v. Gale, No. S-06-909.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, September 15, 2006 Filed,
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Resubmission clause in Neb. Const. art. III, § 2 barred both initiative measures from being placed on 2006 election ballot because their essential substance was same as initiatives in 2004 election; also application of clause did not violate free speech rights or present ballot access issues because it was merely a limitation on initiative process.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
