Farwell DUI-DWI Lawyer, Nebraska


Jerom E. Janulewicz

Employment, Criminal, Real Estate, Litigation
Status:  In Good Standing           

John F. Vipperman

Criminal, Reinsurance, Personal Injury, Accident & Injury
Status:  In Good Standing           

Vipperman Kovanda Wetzel Anderson

Criminal, Transportation & Shipping, Traffic, Family Law, Workers' Compensation
Status:  In Good Standing           

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-620-0900

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-620-0900

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-620-0900

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Messages from all messaging and voice technologies including Email, Text, Phone, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.


Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-943-8690

Member Representative

Call me for fastest results!
800-943-8690

Free Help: Use This Form or Call 800-943-8690

By submitting this lawyer request, I confirm I have read and agree to the Consent to Receive Messages from all messaging and voice technologies including Email, Text, Phone, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy. Information provided is not privileged or confidential.

TIPS

Easily find Farwell DUI-DWI Lawyers and Farwell DUI-DWI Law Firms. For more attorneys, search all Criminal areas including Expungement, Felony, Misdemeanor, RICO Act, White Collar Crime, Traffic and Juvenile Law attorneys.

LEGAL TERMS

MCNAGHTEN RULE

The earliest and most common test for criminal insanity, in which a criminal defendant is judged legally insane only if he could not distinguish right from wron... (more...)
The earliest and most common test for criminal insanity, in which a criminal defendant is judged legally insane only if he could not distinguish right from wrong at the time he committed the crime. For example, a delusional psychotic who believed that his assaultive acts were in response to the will of God would not be criminally responsible for his acts.

EAVESDROPPING

Listening to conversations or observing conduct which is meant to be private, typically by using devices that amplify sound or light, such as stethoscopes or bi... (more...)
Listening to conversations or observing conduct which is meant to be private, typically by using devices that amplify sound or light, such as stethoscopes or binoculars. The term comes from the common law offense of listening to private conversations by crouching under the windows or eaves of a house. Nowadays, eavesdropping includes using electronic equipment to intercept telephone or other wire communications, or radio equipment to intercept broadcast communications. Generally, the term 'eavesdropping' is used when the activity is not legally authorized by a search warrant or court order; and the term 'surveillance' is used when the activity is permitted by law. Compare electronic surveillance.

HOMICIDE

The killing of one human being by the act or omission of another. The term applies to all such killings, whether criminal or not. Homicide is considered noncrim... (more...)
The killing of one human being by the act or omission of another. The term applies to all such killings, whether criminal or not. Homicide is considered noncriminal in a number of situations, including deaths as the result of war and putting someone to death by the valid sentence of a court. Killing may also be legally justified or excused, as it is in cases of self-defense or when someone is killed by another person who is attempting to prevent a violent felony. Criminal homicide occurs when a person purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another. Murder and manslaughter are both examples of criminal homicide.

INTENTIONAL TORT

A deliberate act that causes harm to another, for which the victim may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Acts of domestic violence, such as assault and battery, ar... (more...)
A deliberate act that causes harm to another, for which the victim may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Acts of domestic violence, such as assault and battery, are intentional torts (as well as crimes).

SPECIFIC INTENT

An intent to produce the precise consequences of the crime, including the intent to do the physical act that causes the consequences. For example, the crime of ... (more...)
An intent to produce the precise consequences of the crime, including the intent to do the physical act that causes the consequences. For example, the crime of larceny is the taking of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the other person of the property. A person is not guilty of larceny just because he took someone else's property; it must be proven that he took it with the purpose of keeping it permanently.

CIVIL

Noncriminal. See civil case.

BATTERY

A crime consisting of physical contact that is intended to harm someone. Unintentional harmful contact is not battery, no mater how careless the behavior or how... (more...)
A crime consisting of physical contact that is intended to harm someone. Unintentional harmful contact is not battery, no mater how careless the behavior or how severe the injury. A fist fight is a common battery; being hit by a wild pitch in a baseball game is not.

NOLLE PROSEQUI

Latin for 'we shall no longer prosecute.' At trial, this is an entry made on the record by a prosecutor in a criminal case stating that he will no longer pursue... (more...)
Latin for 'we shall no longer prosecute.' At trial, this is an entry made on the record by a prosecutor in a criminal case stating that he will no longer pursue the matter. An entry of nolle prosequi may be made at any time after charges are brought and before a verdict is returned or a plea entered. Essentially, it is an admission on the part of the prosecution that some aspect of its case against the defendant has fallen apart. Most of the time, prosecutors need a judge's A1:C576 to 'nol-pros' a case. (See Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48a.) Abbreviated 'nol. pros.' or 'nol-pros.'

SELF-INCRIMINATION

The making of statements that might expose you to criminal prosecution, either now or in the future. The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the go... (more...)
The making of statements that might expose you to criminal prosecution, either now or in the future. The 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from forcing you to provide evidence (as in answering questions) that would or might lead to your prosecution for a crime.

SAMPLE LEGAL CASES

State v. Dragoo

... STEPHAN, J. Douglas E. Dragoo was convicted of one count of driving under the influence (DUI); the conviction was enhanced because Dragoo's blood alcohol content was.15 of 1 gram per 100 milliliters of his blood and he had three prior DUI convictions. ...

State v. Head

... PER CURIAM. BACKGROUND. Willow T. Head pled guilty to, and was convicted of, driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) in the district court for Douglas County. ... [2]. ANALYSIS. Applicability of Head's April 2002 DUI Conviction. ...

State v. Nelson

... McCORMACK, J. NATURE OF CASE. Ricky D. Nelson's motor vehicle operator's license was revoked in 1992 for a period of 15 years, after Nelson was convicted of third-offense driving under the influence (DUI). ... This was his third-offense DUI. ...