Legal Opinion

MacKe v. Pierce

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided May 17, 2002No. S-01-207PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGerrard, J.

NATURE OF CASE

Kelly Macke sued Dr. Eddie Pierce, alleging that Pierce tortiously interfered with a business expectancy when Pierce informed Macke’s prospective employer, Burlington Northern Railroad Company, of findings Pierce made during a physical examination of Macke. After a jury verdict in favor of Pierce, Macke filed a motion for new trial, which was sustained by the district court. Pierce appealed. Because Macke’s motion for new trial was premature, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

District Court Proceedings

Macke filed the petition in the instant…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Keef v. State, Department of Motor VehiclesNebraska Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Wicker v. VogelNebraska Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Waite v. City of OmahaNebraska Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Douglas County Board of Commissioners v. Civil Service CommissionNebraska Supreme Court · 2002

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. McEwen v. Nebraska State College Sys.Nebraska Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Cerny v. LongleyNebraska Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Ford v. Estate of ClintonNebraska Supreme Court · 2003
  4. MacKe v. PierceNebraska Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Lindsay Internat. Sales & Serv. v. WegenerNebraska Supreme Court · 2017

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API