 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ashland-Greenwood Pub. Sch. v. Thorell, No. A-05-1446.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In order to receive a contribution from a workers' compensation trust fund for a claimant's permanent total disability payments, a former employer was not required to currently have in its possession certain documents. Requiring the employer to have these documents in its possession imposed a requirement not found in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-128.
|
|||||
| State v. Dupre, No. A-05-1269.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State trooper had probable cause to stop defendant's vehicle after he witnessed the commission of a traffic violation. Defendant's argument that the continued detention after the completion of the traffic stop was unlawful was rejected; defendant and his passenger provided conflicting accounts of where they had been and where they had stayed.
|
|||||
| State v. Hisey, No. A-05-1138.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the arresting officer relied on erroneous information contained in Nebraska's Department of Motor Vehicles records regarding the status of defendant's driver's license, the officer did not have probable cause to arrest defendant; neither the officer nor the dispatcher possessed any true "fact" that supported probable cause.
|
|||||
| Tyler v. Physicians Mut. Ins. Co., No. A-06-776.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, October 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied appellant's application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301.02; appellant had no right to sit in an area of a private business for the purpose of meeting someone, even someone who appeared to be an employee of the business, in order to go somewhere else to eat lunch.
|
|||||
| Pepitone v. Winn, No. S-05-527.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, October 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because attorneys fees were mandatory in an action under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-2,120(12) (Cum. Supp. 2004), the district court erred by denying the home buyers' motion for attorneys fees after the district court granted them summary judgment and awarded them damages.
|
|||||
| Roseland v. Strategic Staff Mgmt., No. S-04-627.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, October 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee handbook provision prohibiting the payment of accrued unused vacation time upon termination was not enforceable because it conflicted with Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-1229, 48-1230; payment of vacation pay was an agreed to benefit between the employer and its employees.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Counsel for Discipline v. Rogers, No. S-06-820.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, October 20, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reciprocal discipline motion was granted and the attorney was disbarred from the practice of law in Nebraska after having been disbarred in the District of Columbia; the supreme court considered the factors of Neb. Ct. R. Disc. 4 in determining that disbarment was the proper discipline of the attorney.
|
|||||
| Hubbart v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. A-06-096.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, October 24, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In seeking a modification of an award based on depression, claimant failed to meet her burden of proof under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-141, and trial court evaluated claimant's application using an incorrect standard; claimant was required to prove that the increase in her incapacity was due solely to the injury resulting from the original accident.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
