By Daniel J. Hassing[0]

Statutory interpretation is a matter that courts wrestle with on a daily basis.  In some cases, it is easy and the text of the statute leads to a clear answer when applied to the facts of a case.  In other cases, courts are left wondering what legislatures intended when they drafted the law.  Over the years, appellate courts have developed rules to aid in their determination of legislative intent.  Like other rules of law, these rules bind lower courts.  But like the legislature, appellate courts are not always clear about the rules they are creating, and lower courts are sometimes left struggling with the application of the court’s ruling.

By William B. Cassel and Anneliese Wright[0]

Introduction

At the appellate level, there are numerous instances where the court is unable to reach the substantive merits of an issue because the assigned error is not preserved in the record.  The purpose of this article is to highlight the situations in which this commonly occurs and set forth the applicable procedure to preserve the error.  This article is by no means intended as an exhaustive guide, but is merely designed to illustrate some of the more common issues that have appeared in reported Nebraska decisions.  First, the article sets forth proper method of preserving the record, which is essential to preserving any error.  Second, it explains how to preserve particular errors–evidentiary, jury instruction, and other errors–for appellate review.  The third and final section sets forth the proper method of requesting the preparation of the record for appellate review.

by John Wiltse[0]

On November 26, 2008, the Nebraska Supreme Court adopted rules[1] requiring most active[2] members of the Nebraska State Bar Association to continue their legal education throughout their careers.  The goal of the rules is to enhance attorney competence so that they may better serve their clients.[3]  Attorney compliance with the continuing legal education (CLE) requirements becomes operative on January 1, 2010.[4]

Beginning October 1, 2009, attendance at any accredited and approved CLE program may apply toward CLE requirements for the first reporting period.  To receive credit, the attorney must first apply to and receive approval from the Nebraska Director of Judicial Branch Education (Director).[5]  Attorneys admitted to engage in the active practice of law in Nebraska are required to complete a minimum of ten hours of approved CLE in each annual reporting period.[6]

By Daniel J. Hassing[0]

This past December, the Nebraska Supreme Court made a landmark decision in Nebraska real estate law in Skyline Woods Homeowners Ass’n v. Broekemeier.[1] In this decision, for the first time, Nebraska recognized implied restrictive covenants[2] inferred from a common scheme of development. Such covenants are not recorded expressly in the chain of title, but rather are inferred from a common plan affecting the property and its surroundings. This decision has the potential to set some costly traps for the unwary homebuyer and real estate attorney.