Oral Arguments are happening now. View them on the web or via Mobile App on iPhone / iPad or Android (4.0+).

Self-Help Center

You are here

Estate of Teague v. Crossroads Cooperative Association

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Tuesday, February 5, 2013

S-12-0702, Estate of Joseph James Teague, Deceased, by and through his Personal Representative, Joani M. Martinosky (Appellant) v Crossroads Cooperative Association, a Nebraska Corporation


Cheyenne County, Judge Derek C. Weimer


Attorneys: R. Kevin O’Donnell, Michael D. Samuelson (McGinley O’Donnell Reynolds & Korth PCLLO) (Appellant) --- Steven W. Olsen, John F. Simmons (Simmons Olsen Law Firm PC)


Civil: Tort action for wrongful death.


Proceedings below: this case was previously before the Supreme Court. See Estate of Teague v. Crossroads Cooperative Association, S-09-1309, (2011) (reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss) (memorandum opinion). Upon remand, the district court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss the 3rd Amended Complaint finding the Workers’ Compensation Act applied to the case and was Appellant’s exclusive remedy. The district court found the Act not to be unconstitutional and found the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.


Issues: 1. That the District Court erred in sustaining Appellee's Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. That the District Court erred in determining that the Workers’ Compensation Act applies to this case. 3. That the District Court erred in failing to recognize an exception to the exclusivity provisions of the Act in light of the facts of this case. 4. That employers seeking the applicability of the Act must be held to the same standard of conduct as employees. To hold otherwise was/is error and improperly deprives individuals such as Joseph James Teague and Appellant due process, equal protection under the law, a right to trial by jury, and constitutes improper special legislation. 5. That notwithstanding Appellant's contention that the Act does not apply to this case, should this Court determine otherwise, then the District Court erred in summarily dismissing Appellant's constitutional arguments because the ultimate success of such constitutional arguments are not a proper issue under a motion to dismiss pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(6). Despite such errors, the District Court further erred in determining that the Act was not unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Joseph James Teague and Appellant.

This page was last modified on Monday, February 11, 2013