Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Abel v. Conover

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided August 19, 1960No. 34787Published

1ConcurrenceWenke, J.

I concur in the result reached by the court but, for reasons hereinafter set forth, do not agree with the court’s holdings in certain respects.

The court holds that the provisions of section 7-106, R. R. S. 1943, providing for treble damages, is violative of Article I, section 3, and Article VII, section 5, of the Constitution of Nebraska. I agree that such provision is unconstitutional for the reason that the Constitution of Nebraska does not permit the recovery of punitive, vindictive, or exemplary damages by individuals in civil cases. See cases cited in the court’s opinion. However, I…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. McNish v. General Credit CorporationNebraska Supreme Court · 1957
  2. School District v. AdamsNebraska Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Arthur Ex Rel. City of Beatrice v. TrindelNebraska Supreme Court · 1959
  4. Cram v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Graham v. KibbleNebraska Supreme Court · 1879

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