TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Bialas
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline LP v. Tarnick
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Shotkoski
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline v. Knust
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline v. Naber
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline v. Choat
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline v. Loseke
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline v. CRC, Inc.
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline v. Carlson
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline v. Sayer
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline v. Widga
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline v. Nyberg
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline v. Van Housen
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline v. Brauer
Transcanada Keystone Pipeline v. Stieren
S-17-0741) TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP (Appellant) v.
JOHN F. SMALL, et al. – S-17-741
KENNETH M. PROSOSKI, et al. – S-17-742
JOHNNIE P. BIALAS, et al. – S-17-743
JAMES TARNICK, et al. – S-17-744
CLIFFORD F. SHOTKOSKI, et al. - S-17-745
PATRICIA A. KNUST, et al. – S-17-747
WALTER G. NABER, et al. – S-17-748
TIMOTHY L. CHOAT, et al. – S-17-750
DONALD C. LOSEKE, et al. – S-17-751
C.R.C., INC., et al. – S-17-753
JAMES D. CARLSON, et al. – S-17-754
EDYTHE L. SAYER, et al. – S-17-755
DONALD D. WIDGA, et al. – S-17-756
MARY JANE NYBERG, et al. – S-17-757
TERRY JAMES VAN HOUSEN, et al. – S-17-758
BONNIE L. BRAUER, et al. – S-17-759
DEBORAH ANN STIEREN, et al. – S-17-760
Nance, Boone and Polk Counties, Judge Rachel A. Daugherty
Attorneys: James G. Powers, Patrick D. Pepper (McGrath North Mullin & Kratz PCLLO) (for Appellant) --- David A. Domina, Brian E. Jorde (Domina Law Group pcllo) (Appellee)
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 affirmed the award. Keystone appealed and these appeals were moved to the Nebraska Supreme Court pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1106(3).
Issues: 1. The District Courts erred in holding affidavit testimony is admissible to prove attorney fees and costs pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §76-726, and finding the County Courts did not commit reversible error by receiving the Landowners’ affidavits into evidence.2. The District Courts erred in affirming the County Courts’ attorney fees and costs awards and construing Neb. Rev. Stat. §76-726 to permit reimbursement of fees actually incurred without proof of payment and without evidence showing the specific amount of fees allegedly charged or how those fees were charged.