Golda v. City of Omaha

Nebraska Supreme Court

Golda v. City of Omaha

324 N.W.2d 264, 212 Neb. 582, 1982 Neb. LEXIS 1253

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 17, 1982

DocketNo. 82-222

StatusPublished

This text of 324 N.W.2d 264 (Golda v. City of Omaha) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Golda v. City of Omaha, 324 N.W.2d 264, 212 Neb. 582, 1982 Neb. LEXIS 1253 (Neb. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Krivosha, C.J.

This action arises by reason of an order of dismissal entered by a three-judge Workmen’s Compensation Court on a petition for rehearing. The three-judge court found that the statute of limitations had run and that the appellant Golda was thereby precluded from bringing this action. We believe that the instant case is governed by our decisions in Kohlbeck v. City of Omaha, 211 Neb. 372, 318 N.W.2d 742 (1982), and Teague v. City of Omaha, 211 Neb. 872, 320 N.W.2d 779 (1982), and, accordingly, the motion of the appellee, City of Omaha, requesting summary affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the rules of this court should be granted. Summary affirmance is granted and the judgment of the Workmen’s Compensation Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Clinton, J., participating on briefs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Krivosha, C.J.

This action arises by reason of an order of dismissal entered by a three-judge Workmen’s Compensation Court on a petition for rehearing. The three-judge court found that the statute of limitations had run and that the appellant Golda was thereby precluded from bringing this action. We believe that the instant case is governed by our decisions in Kohlbeck v. City of Omaha, 211 Neb. 372, 318 N.W.2d 742 (1982), and Teague v. City of Omaha, 211 Neb. 872, 320 N.W.2d 779 (1982), and, accordingly, the motion of the appellee, City of Omaha, requesting summary affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the rules of this court should be granted. Summary affirmance is granted and the judgment of the Workmen’s Compensation Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Clinton, J., participating on briefs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

324 N.W.2d 264, 212 Neb. 582, 1982 Neb. LEXIS 1253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/golda-v-city-of-omaha-neb-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack