Reavis v. Solminski
Nebraska Supreme Court
1DissentCaporale, J.
I must respectfully dissent. However, in doing so, I wish to begin by noting my agreement with the plurality on several points.
Although the plurality does not deal separately with the district court’s overruling of the motion for directed verdict made by the defendant-appellant and cross-appellee, James Slominski, D.D.S., at the close of the evidence presented by the plaintiff-appellee and cross-appellant, Mary Reavis, I agree that Slominski cannot successfully predicate error on that ruling, for by adducing evidence after the ruling, he waived any error such ruling may have created. See…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Foley v. Polaroid Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1987
- Faniel v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1979
- Schieffer v. Catholic Archdiocese of OmahaNebraska Supreme Court · 1993
- Lindsay Manufacturing Co. v. Universal Surety Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1994
- Duggan v. BeermannNebraska Supreme Court · 1994
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.