Saturday, April 28, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Dallas in the Panhandle: Nebraska Supreme Court affirms oil driller's sale of joint venture interest over partner's objections, but reserves trial on sale of royalties. Oil driller sold its interests in drilling projects in Nebraska to outside entities. Participant in joint operating agreement countered that it had a right of refusal and also had a right to purchase part of the Driller’s overriding royalty interests. Driller sold off substantially all of its assets to more than one entity. Nebraska Supreme Court agrees that applying Texas law, the selling oil driller could sell to more than one entity substantially all of its assets without triggering the preferential rights of the other joint operating agreement participant. Summary judgment in favor of seller however reversed as to the other participants overriding royalty interests. Court upholds $6000 sanction against defendants also for failing to comply with discovery orders. Coral Prod. Corp. v. Central Resources, S-05-564The district court determined the parties agreed in the JOA thatTexas law would govern their disputes and granted summaryjudgment to Central, E XCO, and Zecchi on Coral and K JJ’s claims of fraud, breach of contract, and tortious interference. Italso determined that the JOA did not apply to E XCO’s transfer ofoverriding royalty interests to Zecchi.We determine that Central’s sale of all of its oil and gas assetsfell within the parties’ typewritten exception to the preferentialright- to-purchase provision of the preprinted JOA. However,we conclude that the district court erred in determining Coral’spreferential right to purchase did not apply to overriding royaltyinterests. We reverse on that sole issue and affirm the districtcourt’s order of summary judgment in all other respects. We conclude that the district court did not err in determining that Central’s sale of all of its oil and gas assets fell within the parties’ typewritten exception to the preprinted preferential-rightto- purchase provision of their joint operating agreement. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Coral and K JJ to pay attorney fees in the amount of $6,000 as a sanction for failing to produce documents that necessitated the retaking of a corporate deposition. However, we conclude that the district court erred in determining that Coral’s preferential right to purchase did not apply to overriding royalty interests and remand the cause for further proceedings on that single issue. The district court’s orders of summary judgment are affirmed in all other respects
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Jennifer Brown hits the NFL lottery: even though she by her own admission had sex with two other men near the time she conceived a child with former Husker player Correl Buckhalter, Nebraska supreme court affirms default judgment against Buckhalter. State on behalf of A.E. v. Buckhalter, S-06-693, 273 Neb. 443The Nebraska Supreme Court took Jennifer Brown at her word that she had sex with three men including Buckhalter near the time they conceived AE. You know the other two were not the fathers, and Buckhalters “private” test was not reliable. So if you are a something headed “ho” admitting to having sex with three men at the same time means there werent more?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
The Nebraska supreme court requires police to have probable cause to stop vehicles for drunk driving, except at night when the driver might actually want the officer's assistance. When the state patrol trooper stopped the defendant on a Washington County highway at 300AM, the "community caretaking" exception to the fourth amendment permitted the policeman's investigative stop. State v. Bakewell, S-06-765, 273 Neb. 372. Better known cases of the "caretaking" exception involved the police departments' seizing evidence they found in impounded vehicles. The Nevada supreme court refused to extend the caretaking exception to traffic stops "theincidentinquestionoccurredat3:15- a.m. there was little or no traffic present on this stretch of high way at the time of the incident the defendant's vehicle stopped orslowed considerably five times within approximately 90 secondswhile traveling down the highway, with the vehicle eventually-pulling off on to the shoulde rof the road. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for Groves to conclude that the Defendant was lost or that something was wrong"
Nebraska Supreme Court says cigarettes can be salary for undercover agents, but in this case the informant was just giving information. State Patrol investigator gave a cooperating witness $20 for cigarettes after she gave information Harold Kuenning's murder. The Defendant in a murder case argued this was improper because the witness was in prison or on probation, parole. Nebraska Supreme Court holds that merely giving information to the Police does not make a witness an undercover agent. See 29-2262.01 State v. McKinney, S-05-591, 273 Neb. 346. The prosecution must also comply with the fourth amendment when collecting DNA samples from suspects even while they are incarcerated. under§29-3304,lawenforcementpersonnel must have probable cause to believe that the person whose Dnais sought—whether he or she has been arrested or may otherwise be subject to Dna testing—committed the crime for which the Dna is sought.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Nebraska Supreme Court signals it will protect attorney client communications more than work product in discovery proceedings. State ex rel. Stivrins v. Flowers, S-06-1044, 273 Neb. 336 Plaintiff sued Lincoln physician Timothy Stivrins for failure to diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiff's counsel notices the doctor's partner physician for a deposition and prior to the deposition the partner physician sought legal advice from the same lawyer who represented the defendant. Plaintiff counsel questioned the witness about attorney client communications he had with the defendant's counsel. The district court upheld the plaintiff's motion to compel. Defendant filed this mandamus action in the Supreme Court against the district court and affirms the writ. While the Supreme Court in its Greenwalt v. Wal-Mart Stores, 253 Neb. 32, 567 N.W.2d 560 (1997) decision applied a balancing test for work product claims after a party established a prima facie case for protection, the court here appears to shut off any discovery of attorney client communications as long as the party makes a prima facie case for the privilege. Although the court in Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. 81, 718 N.W.2d 531 (2006) denied an interlocutory appeal from an adverse ruling against a party's privilege claim, the supreme court distinguishes the result against the privilege in that case because the party seeking protection did not file their claim as a mandamus action. "Once pace established the attorney-client relationship, the plaintiff had the burden to establish that the inquiry related to or was an exception to this rule or that the communications wereoutside the scope of the privilege and further an appeal after the disclosure of the privileged communications at issue would be an inadequate remedy in this case."