The Final Judgment Rule and Appellate Review of Discovery Orders in Nebraska

In Lund v. Holbrook the Nebraska Supreme Court held that no appeal could be taken until after final judgment from an order requiring a party to turn over documents to his opponent for inspection and copying. The basis for the decision was a statute limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court to the review of a “judgment rendered or final order.” “Final order” is defined by statute as one which “ . . . in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment.” The same rule would undoubtedly by applied to any other discovery order in Nebraska. This “final judgment” rule exists in some form in almost every state. The application of the rule in Lund v. Holbrook is in line with the rulings of the majority of states as to discovery orders. The purpose of the rule is to reduce the volume of appeals which would, in the absence of the rule, clog the calendars of appellate courts and cause interminable delay in litigation. Many states have modified the final judgment rule by statute to allow immediate appeal from specified orders which are not reviewable under the majority rule until after final judgment. The reason for these modifications may be either that the final judgment rule does not fulfill its purposes, or that the assumption underlying the rule (i.e., that the effect of any error on the part of the trial court can be remedied by a new trial) has proved to be untrue. The decision in Lund v. Holbrook illustrates another type of order, the discovery order, which may be worthy of consideration as justifying a departure from the final judgment rule. We propose to examine: (a) the effect of the final judgment rule in cases involving discovery orders, to determine whether departure from the final judgment rule is justified, (b) the means presently existing in Nebraska for avoiding the effect of the final judgment rule as to discovery orders, and (c) the desirability of, and possibilities for statutory modification of the final judgment rule as to discovery orders in Nebraska

The Final Judgment Rule and Appellate Review of Discovery Orders in Nebraska

In Lund v. Holbrook the Nebraska Supreme Court held that no appeal could be taken until after final judgment from an order requiring a party to turn over documents to his opponent for inspection and copying. The basis for the decision was a statute limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court to the review of a “judgment rendered or final order.” “Final order” is defined by statute as one which “ . . . in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment.” The same rule would undoubtedly by applied to any other discovery order in Nebraska. This “final judgment” rule exists in some form in almost every state. The application of the rule in Lund v. Holbrook is in line with the rulings of the majority of states as to discovery orders. The purpose of the rule is to reduce the volume of appeals which would, in the absence of the rule, clog the calendars of appellate courts and cause interminable delay in litigation. Many states have modified the final judgment rule by statute to allow immediate appeal from specified orders which are not reviewable under the majority rule until after final judgment. The reason for these modifications may be either that the final judgment rule does not fulfill its purposes, or that the assumption underlying the rule (i.e., that the effect of any error on the part of the trial court can be remedied by a new trial) has proved to be untrue. The decision in Lund v. Holbrook illustrates another type of order, the discovery order, which may be worthy of consideration as justifying a departure from the final judgment rule. We propose to examine: (a) the effect of the final judgment rule in cases involving discovery orders, to determine whether departure from the final judgment rule is justified, (b) the means presently existing in Nebraska for avoiding the effect of the final judgment rule as to discovery orders, and (c) the desirability of, and possibilities for statutory modification of the final judgment rule as to discovery orders in Nebraska

Repricing Limited Liability and Separate Entity Status

In this Article we discuss how U.S. entity law has evolved in recent decades so that (i) limited liability has become available to the owners of any form of business organization, and (ii) all forms of business organizations are now seen as having the status of entities separate from their owners. Those changes have occurred without significant consideration of their consequences or what they mean for the public policies underlying entity law. At the same time, there is an increasing awareness by businesses that promotion of social benefits and/or reduction of externalities is in the firm’s best interests. There has recently been development of hybrid business models, but they have been driven by pragmatic concerns rather than an understanding of the theoretical underpinnings for, and restrictions on, those models. This Article strives to point the way toward a new understanding of how the state should frame the requirements for limited liability and separate entity status

High‐gain lateral pnp bipolar transistors made using focused ion beam implantation

We report the fabrication of lateral pnp bipolar transistors using focused ion beam (FIB) implants of boron and phosphorus for the collector and base, respectively. The implants of B+, P+, and P+ + were all at a dose of 1×1013 /cm2 and a beam voltage of 75 kV. These implants defined spaces between the emitter and collector regions of 0.5–1.50 μm; which, after diffusion and zero voltage depletion width effects were considered, produced effective on‐wafer device basewidths of ∼0.2 μm. For the best devices, values of hFE near 100 were obtained with good junction characteristics and at peak collector currents of 10 μA/μm of device width

Interstate migration of the US poverty population: Immigration “pushes” and welfare magnet “pulls”

This study evaluates the social and demographic structure of poverty migration during the 1985–90 period based on an analysis of recent census data. Particular attention is given to the roles of two policy-relevant factors that are proposed to be linked to poverty migration. The first of these is the role of immigration from abroad and its effect on the net out-migration of longer-term residents with below-poverty incomes, from States receiving the highest volume of immigrants. Such a response, it is argued, could result from job competition or other economic and social costs associated with immigration. The second involves the poverty population “magnet” effect associated with State welfare benefits (AFDC and Food Stamp payments) which has come under renewed scrutiny in light of the impending reform of the federal welfare program. The impact of both of these factors on interstate poverty migration is evaluated in a broader context that takes cognizance of other sociodemographic subgroups, and State-level attributes that are known to be relevant in explaining internal migration. This research employs an exceptionally rich data base of aggregate migration flows, specially tabulated from the full migration sample of the 1990 US census (based on the “residence 5 years ago” question). It also employs an analysis technique, the nested logit model, which identifies separately the “push” and “pull” effects of immigration, welfare benefits, and other State attributes on the migration process. Our findings are fairly clear. The high volume of immigration to selected US States does affect a selective out-migration of the poverty population, which is stronger for whites, Blacks and other non-Asian minorities as well as the least-educated. These results are consistent with arguments that internal migrants are responding to labor market competition from similarly educated immigrants. Moreover, we found that the impact of immigration occurs primarily as a “push” rather than a reduced “pull.” In contrast, State welfare benefits exert only minimal effects on the interstate migration of the poverty population—either as “pulls” or “pushes,” although some demographic segments of that population are more prone to respond than others. In addition to these findings, our results reveal the strong impact that a State's racial and ethnic composition exerts in both retaining and attracting migrants of like race and ethnic groups. This suggests the potential for a greater cross-state division in the US poverty population, by race and ethnic status.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43484/1/11111_2005_Article_BF02208337.pd

Immigration and Internal Migration 'Flight' from US Metropolitan Areas: Toward a New Demographic Balkanisation

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68704/2/10.1080_00420989550012861.pd