S-23-0146 Elaine Clemens (Appellant) v. Curtis Emme, Personal Representative of the Estate of Arthur D. Emme (Appellee)
Appeal from the District Court for Holt County, Judge Mark D. Kozisek
Attorneys: Frederick T. Bartell (Fitzgerald, Vetter, Temple, Bartell & Henderson for Appellant) and Tracey L. Buettner (Stratton, DeLay, Doele, Carlson, Buettner & Stover, P.C., L.L.O. for Appellee)
Civil: Declaratory judgment
Proceedings Below: Following a jury trial, the court entered judgment in favor of Appellee and dismissed the complaint. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) The District Court erred by entering judgment in favor of Appellee and against Appellant on the theory of judicial estoppel and doctrine of inconsistent positions, and dismissing such theory of recovery; 2) The District Court erred by refusing to enter a directed verdict in favor of Appellant at the close of all evidence and in overruling Appellant’s Motion to Set Aside the Verdict and Motion for New Trial; 3) The District Court erred in its ruling on hearsay testimony, including not allowing Appellant’s prior consistent statements, and allowing Appellee to elicit hearsay statements; and 4) The Jury Verdict was clearly wrong and not supported by competent evidence.