 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Eihusen v. Eihusen, No. S-05-523.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, October 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court properly denied wife's request for jury trial as action to set aside judgment under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001 invoked court's equitable powers, for which there existed no constitutional right to a jury trial under Neb. Const. art. I, § 6. Wife's petition to vacate was denied as she made no effort to ascertain true value of debenture.
|
|||||
| Millatmal v. Millatmal, No. S-05-237.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, October 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court erred in its award of child support to the mother because record was undisputed that the daughter was married at the time of the entry of the divorce decree, there was no indication the marriage was invalid under Pakistani law, and pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-371.01(1)(b), father therefore had no obligation to pay child support.
|
|||||
| Stewart v. Advanced Gaming Techs., Inc., No. S-06-966.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, October 27, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an initiative measure to authorize video keno was not the same in essential substance as two initiatives submitted in 2004, the resubmission clause of Neb. Const. art. III, § 2, did not bar the initiative from being placed on the 2006 general election ballot.
|
|||||
| State v. Daniel M. (In re Ethan M.), Nos. A-06-179 through A-06-181.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, October 31, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Social services agency was not required under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-283.01 to make reasonable efforts to reunify mother with her two daughters, where there was clear and convincing evidence that daughters had been chronically abused by mother. However agency was required to make reasonable efforts to reunify father with his son.
|
|||||
| Kanne v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., No. S-05-299.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, November 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In class action suit in which consumers alleged credit card companies had violated the Nebraska Junkin Act and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, consumers lacked standing for their antitrust claims because their alleged injuries were derivative and remote, and their unjust enrichment claims failed because companies were not unjustly enriched.
|
|||||
| Liming v. Liming, No. S-06-015.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, November 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The district court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital estate between a husband and wife. The husband was awarded property with a value of $ 82,940, while the wife was awarded $ 64,011.53. By her own calculations, the wife was awarded approximately 44 percent of the marital estate, and she received alimony of $ 5,400.
|
|||||
| State v. Barfield, No. S-05-973.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, November 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct where the prosecutor described defendant as a monster and referred to defense attorneys as having the definition of "lie" written on the backs of their business cards.
|
|||||
| State v. Lassek, No. S-05-1024.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, November 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1823(1), evidence was sufficient to support trial court's findings that defendant was competent to stand trial since (1) he generally understood which crimes he had been charged; (2) he could assist in his own defense; and (3) he did not currently suffer any disorder that could serve as the basis for an insanity defense.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
