a scholarly journal published by the students of the University of Nebraska College of Law

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.

By John P. Lenich[0]

Section 25-601(1) provides that the plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss an action without prejudice anytime before final submission.[1]  “Final submission contemplates submission on both the law and the facts when nothing remains to be done in order to render the submission complete.”[2]  A final submission occurs in a bench trial when the parties finish their closing arguments.   A final submission occurs in a jury trial after the parties finish their closing arguments and the jury has been instructed.[3]  At that point, the action has been put in the hands of the trier of fact for a decision on the merits.

By Eric Berger[0]

Introduction

In February 2008, the Nebraska Supreme Court held in State v. Mata that Nebraska’s electrocution procedure violated the Nebraska constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.[1]  Mata left Nebraska in the curious position of having the death penalty on the books without a constitutional method of executing death sentences.  In December 2008, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning submitted a report to the Governor recommending that Nebraska adopt lethal injection as a new means to carry out a sentence of death.  General Bruning’s report included LB 36, a proposed statute that would institute lethal injection in Nebraska.

By Steven L. Willborn[0]

Nebraska has followed the national trend limiting employment at will.  It recognizes oral contracts,[1] limits discharges that violate public policy,[2] and requires employers who promise jobs to deliver them.[3]  None of these were recognized during the heyday of employment at will.