TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Graves
S-17-0366) TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP (Appellant) v.
WILLIAM F. DUNAVAN, et al. – Case No. S-17-366
TERRI HARRINGTON, et al. – Case No. S-17-367
DANIEL A. GRAVES, et al. – Case No. S-17-369
York County, Judge Mary C. Gilbride
Attorneys: James G. Powers, Patrick D. Pepper (McGrath North Mullin & Kratz PCLLO) (for Appellant) --- David A. Domina, Brian E. Jorde (Domina Law Group pcllo) (Appellees/Cross-Appellants)
Civil: Eminent domain proceedings; attorney fees and costs
Proceedings below: TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP (“Keystone”) initiated eminent domain proceedings to acquire property interests regarding the Keystone XL interstate pipeline, but voluntarily dismissed the proceedings in 2015. The Appellees (“Landowners”) filed motions requesting awards of attorney fees and costs pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-726. The county court granted the motions and awarded attorney fees and costs. Keystone appealed to the district court. The district court reversed the award and remanded the cases back to the county court for further proceedings. Keystone appealed and these appeals were moved to the Nebraska Supreme Court pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3).
Issues: 1. The District Court erred in finding affidavit testimony is admissible to prove attorney fees and costs pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §76-726 and holding the York County Court did not commit reversible error by receiving the Landowners’ affidavits into evidence. 2. The District Court erred in construing Neb. Rev. Stat. §76-726 to permit reimbursement without proof of payment, and remanding the cases to the York County Court for further proceedings on the amount of attorney fees and costs the Landowners actually incurred because of the condemnation proceedings.
Cross-Appeal by Landowners: 1. The district court erred when it failed to affirm the county court and uphold the award to each Appellee because all elements required to recover fees and costs under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 6-726 were established. 2. The district court erred by holding there was insufficient evidence that landowners actually incurred the fees found reasonable and due by the county court.