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

You are here

Court of Appeals Call Case Summaries

Irwin, Inbody and Riedmann, Judges

Concordia University - Wednesday, September 16, 2015 subject to call at 9:30 AM

A-14-0916, Intervision Systems Technologies, Inc. v. Intercall, Inc. (Appellant)

Douglas County, District Court Judge Peter C. Bataillon

Attorney for Appellant:  Patrick R. Guinan (Erickson | Sederstrom, P.C. LLO)

Attorney for Appellee:  Luke T. Deaver (Person, DeWald & Deaver, P.C., L.L.O.)

Civil Action:  Breach of contract

Action Taken by Trial Court:  The district court entered judgment for Intervision Systems Technologies in the amount of $73,852.76 in damages plus prejudgment interest at the rate of 2.142 percent.

Assignments of Error on Appeal:  Intervision Systems assigns that the district court erred in finding that a notice clause in the contract was unenforceable as a statute of limitations clause, and in receiving evidence of a court file from a prior case. InterCall on its counterclaim assigns that the district court applied an erroneous interest rate to damages.

A-14-0963, Jeremiah J. Mowery v. Melissa A. Lovrien (Appellant)

Sarpy County, District Court Judge William B. Zastera

Attorney for Appellant:  Terrance A. Poppe, Benjamin D. Kramer (Morrow, Poppe, Watermeier & Lonowski, P.C.)

Attorney for Appellee:  Jeff T. Courtney (Jeff T. Courtney, P.C., L.L.O.)

Civil Action:  Custody Order and Parenting Plan

Action Taken by Trial Court:  The district court awarded custody of the parties’ minor child and child support to Appellee (the father). The court also established a parenting plan which provided Appellant (the mother) with specified visitation time with the child.

Assignments of Error on Appeal:  On appeal, Appellant asserts that the district court erred in awarding Appellee custody of the minor child and in creating a restrictive parenting plan that is not in the child’s best interests. Specifically, Appellant asserts that she has been the child’s primary caregiver since birth and that the child has a bond with her half-siblings that will be harmed if Appellee is awarded custody. 

A-14-0747, Chrissie E. Wiech v. Craig A. Wiech (Appellant)

Sarpy County, District Court Judge William Zastera

Attorney for Appellant:  Aimee S. Melton, A. Bree Robbins (Reagan, Melton & Delaney, L.L.P.)

Attorney for Appellee:  Michael N. Schirber (Schirber & Wagner, L.L.P.)

Civil Action:  Dissolution of marriage

Action Taken by Trial Court:  The district court dissolved the parties’ marriage and divided the marital property.

Assignments of Error on Appeal:  Craig assigns that the district court erred in its division of the marital property in several respects.

A-14-0032, In re Interest of Madysen S.

Lincoln County, County Court Judge Michael E. Piccolo

Attorney for Appellant: Todd M. Jeffers (Brouillette, Dugan & Troshynski, P.C., LLC)

Attorney for Appellee: Angela M. Franz (Waite, McWha, & Heng)

Civil Action:  Termination & Adoption

Action Taken by Trial Court:  The trial court found that, pursuant to the adoption statutes, the appellant abandoned his minor children and his consent was not required for their adoption by their stepfather.

Assignments of Error on Appeal:  The appellant assigns that the trial court erred by finding that he had abandoned the minor children and that his consent was no longer necessary for the adoption of the children. 

Moore, Chief Judge, Pirtle and Bishop, Judges

Concordia University - Wednesday, September 16, 2015 subject to call at 1:30 PM

A-14-0949, Danny McBurnett (Appellant) v. Nebraskaland Tire, Inc., a Nebraska corporation (Appellee/Cross-Appellant)

Scotts Bluff County, District Court Judge Leo Dobrovolny

Attorney for Appellant:  Sterling T. Huff (Island & Huff Attorneys at Law, PC, LLO)

Attorney for Appellee/Cross-Appellant:  Dan H. Ketcham, Michael L. Moran (Engles, Ketcham, Olson & Keith, P.C.)

Civil: Action for employment discrimination under Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act.

Action Taken by Trial Court:  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee/Cross-Appellant Nebraskaland Tire (NLT).

Assignments of Error on Appeal:  Whether the district court err in 1) not properly reviewing the evidence; 2) determining McBurnett failed to show his monocular vision substantially limits his ability to see, work, or engage in any other major life activity when compared to most people in the general population; 3) granting summary judgment in favor of NLT; 4) not finding there were genuine issues of material fact that prevented summary judgment, and 5) not viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant and not giving appellant the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.

Assignments of Error on Cross-Appeal: Whether the district court err in finding 1) that McBurnett timely filed his suit arising out of an alleged demotion, 2) that McBurnett timely filed his suit arising out of an alleged failure to accommodate, and 3) that the accommodation issue was contained in the Nebraska Equal Opportunities Commission charge.

 

A-14-1094, State of Nebraska v. Glenn A. Woodard (Appellant)

District Court for Sarpy County, District Judge William B. Zastera

Attorneys for Appellant:  Michael J. Wilson & Jessica P. Douglas (Schaefer Shapiro Law Firm)

Attorney for Appellee:  George R. Love (Attorney General’s Office)

Criminal Action:  Witness tampering

Action taken by the Trial Court:  Over Woodard’s objections, the trial court admitted exhibit 1 containing audio recordings of Woodard’s purported telephone conversations with and concerning the witness at issue in the witness tampering charges. The court found Woodard guilty of witness tampering, and Woodard appealed.

Assignments of Error on Appeal:  Did the trial court err in admitting exhibit 1 into evidence? Did the trial court err in overruling Woodard’s motion for directed verdict? Did the trial court err in finding the evidence sufficient to convict Woodard of witness tampering?

A-14-0736, In re Conservatorship of Celeste T., a child under 18 years of age.

Douglas County, County Court Judge Joseph P. Caniglia

Attorney for Appellant:  Nathaniel V. Romano, Ellysa Gossar, and Kelly White (Milton R. Abrahams Legal Clinic)

Attorney for Appellee (Guardian Ad Litem):  Diane B. Metz

Attorney for Appellee (father):  Jay A. Ferguson

Civil: Guardianship

Action Taken by Trial Court:  The trial court denied Appellant Melissa’s request to terminate Kathie’s guardianship over Melissa’s daughter, Celeste.

Assignments of Error on Appeal: Whether the county court erred in (1) finding sufficient evidence to overcome the parental preference principle and not terminating the guardianship; (2) only applying a “best interests” analysis; and (3) shifting the burden of proof to the mother to prove she was a fit parent.

A-14-0995, Arthur and Linda Lamprecht (Appellants) v. Brent Schluntz and Gerald Schluntz

Furnas County, District Judge David W. Urbom

Attorney for Appellants: Tony Brock

Attorney for Appellees: James B. Luers, Krista M. Carlson (Wolfe, Snowden, Hurd, Luers & Ahl, LLP)

Civil Action: Res Ipsa Loquitur

Action Taken by Trial Court: The district court granted the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Appellants’ complaint.

Assignments of Error on Appeal: The Lamprechts assign as error, summarized and restated, that the district court erred (1) in granting summary judgment based on its conclusion that res ipsa loquitur did not apply, (2) in making certain findings of fact, and (3) in excluding Arthur’s affidavit.