On his third trip to the Nebraska Supreme Court for driving while intoxicated second offense defendant Lloyd, the Supreme Court holds that the Douglas County Attorney's office did not miss the 29-110 statute of limitations for retrying him for DWI 2nd offense. State v. Lloyd, S-06-1113, 275 Neb. 205 The Supreme Court initially ruled that the City of Omaha could not prosecute him under the Omaha municipal code driving while intoxicated 2nd offense section because the municipal dwi code section was inconsistent with state law ( State v. Loyd, 265 Neb. 232, 655 N.W.2d 703 (2003).. Then the Douglas County Attorney refiled the cases against the defendant for DWI 2nd offense under Nebraska statutes § 60-6,196(2) and the Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's interlocutory appeal because his statute of limitations objection was not a final order State v. Loyd, 269 Neb. 762, 696 N.W.2d 860 (2005).. Finally after the Douglas county court found defendant guilty of DWI2ndMcCormack) rules the Douglas County Attorney did not miss the 18 month statute of limitations under 29-110 because the time the case was pending on appeal tolled the limitations period. “pending” means: “Begun, but not yet completed; unsettled; undetermined; in process of settlement or adjustment. T hus, an action or suit is ‘pending’ from its inception until the rendition of final judgment.”Loyd’s case remained pending while on appeal to the district court and this court. T he statute of limitations under § 29-110(1) was tolled during that period, and the March 18, 2003, complaint was timely filed."

Malpractice lawyers will sue other lawyers for settling cases and also for taking cases to court. Nebraska Supreme Court (J. Wright) reinstates $1.6 million malpractice verdict against Omaha's McGrath North law firm in favor of former client LaVista Keno operator Richard Bellino and his trial attorney David Domina. Bellino v. McGrath North, S-06-130, 274 Neb. 130. Lawyers beware of advising clients to accept settlements that another lawyer will say were too low, conversely don't advise a client to beat a settlement offer at trial. The Douglas County jury ruled that McGrath North's client received bad legal advice on how to dump his business partner in their Keno business and then that he would win in court. Although the district court agreed that the defendants' continuous representation through the clients unsuccessful appeal against the former partner's business opportunity lawsuit was timely and that the defendants were negligent , the district judge reduced the jury's $1.6 million to $224K. The district judge reasoned that since the client would owe his partner something eventually, no damage resulted from the attorney's conduct. Supreme Court disagrees. "After (plaintiff) did not accept (former partner's) offer, (Plaintiff's) appeal continued until this court affirmed the judgment in favor of (former partner). The jury could reasonably have concluded that but for the negligence of McGrath North, Plaintiff would have paid substantially less than $3.1 million to attain his stated goals."