# Ruwe v. Farmers Mutual United Insurance Co.

> Nebraska Supreme Court · May 10, 1991 · 238 Neb. 67

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690211

## Case

- **Full name:** Chris J. Ruwe, Appellant, v. Farmers Mutual United Insurance Company, Inc., Successor to Concordia Mutual Insurance Company, Appellee
- **Court:** Nebraska Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 10, 1991
- **Citations:** 238 Neb. 67; 469 N.W.2d 129; 1991 Neb. LEXIS 201
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Grant
- **Judges:** Hastings, Boslaugh, White, Caporale, Shanahan, Grant, Fahrnbruch
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690211

## Opinion text

*76 Grant, J.,
concurring.
I agree wholly with the opinion in this case. I write separately only to inform the members of the bar that problems lurk in the practice of law that most practicing lawyers and judges (specifically including the writer of this concurrence) never realize. In this case, an expert witness testified on behalf of the defendant. During his sworn testimony, this expert testified that he had graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1972, with a degree in electrical engineering, and from Texas A & M in 1982, with a Ph.D. in the same subject. He rendered learned expert opinions in the case.
Some time after cross-examination of this expert, plaintiff’s attorney and defendant’s attorney (not defendant’s present counsel) entered into a stipulation that no one with the witness’ name had graduated from MIT in 1972 and that no one with the witness’ name had ever graduated from Texas A & M or had received a doctorate from that school in 1982 or any other year. This stipulation apparently precipitated defendant’s offer to confess judgment, as referred to in the majority opinion.
I feel that such information is appropriately disseminated to the bar, to at least reduce the chances that similar misfortunes may occur to unsuspecting lawyers. It would seem not only that Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion, but that the careful lawyer should check to determine if she was legally married to Julius.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9690211. Public record. Not legal advice.