 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brodine v. Blue Cross Blue Shield , No. S-05-712.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, December 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When insured brought suit against health care provider, district court properly granted provider summary judgment. Action was time barred because contract's three-year limitations period was applicable period, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-710.03. Three-year period began to run 18 months from date of insured's last medical treatment.
|
|||||
| Myers v. Neb. Inv. Council, No. S-05-532.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, December 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayer had standing to assert a claim for allegedly illegal investment management contracts entered between a state agency and investment companies. The state agency had authority to enter into the contracts under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 72-1242, the contracts were not void, and other questions of enforceability were moot when the money was returned.
|
|||||
| Peterson v. Ohio Cas. Group, No. S-05-691.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, December 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurance company was not obligated to defend or indemnify insureds in a lawsuit brought by an anesthesiologist against an insured who had practiced with him because the suit alleged that the insured defamed the anesthesiologist in an effort to oust him from their practice; thus, the suit fell within the policies' business pursuits exclusions.
|
|||||
| State v. Caniglia, No. S-05-069.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, December 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a district court did not impose a sentence when it terminated defendant's probation unsuccessfully after a violation, a court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to hear the case under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2320; therefore, a remand was necessary for the imposition of a proper sentencing order under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2268.
|
|||||
| State v. Walker, No. S-05-753.,
SUPREME COURT OF NEBRASKA, December 8, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err under U.S. Const. amend. XIV in granting the prosecution's peremptory challenges, allowing a victim's identification of defendant, and defendant's confession into evidence, ruling defendant competent for trial, allowing the prosecution to amend the charges, or denying defendant's motion to dismiss his attorneys.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Crete Carrier Corp., No. A-05-1328.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, December 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was not entitled to additional workers' compensation disability payments or penalties under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-125 from his employer and its insurer, who had unilaterally stopped payments, because a stipulation provided that the employee would receive payments during vocational rehabilitation and was valid under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-141.
|
|||||
| Sanitary Improvement Dist. No. 177 v. Emplrs. Mut. Cas. Co., No. A-05-195.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, December 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not abuse its discretion when it vacated its fifth order of dismissal based on case progression standards when a real estate owner diligently pursued prosecution of its breach of contract claim against a surety of an excavation and wrecking company that alleged failed to perform certain contractual work.
|
|||||
| State v. Poppe, No. A-06-475.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, December 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although two orders were not formally consolidated, court had jurisdiction over defendant's appeal of costs and his attorney's fees; orders involved the same defendant and the jurisdictional requirements of timely notice of appeal and payment of docket fee were met. However, with no finding of indigency, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3908 required a remand.
|
|||||
| State v. Wiemer, No. A-06-367.,
NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS, December 12, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A district court did not force defendant to admit to specific facts of the charge of theft by unlawful taking when it accepted defendant's plea of no contest; thus, defendant's plea was voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly made. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing imprisonment when defendant's scheme was elaborate.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
