A-15-0773, In re Interest of Darius A. No case summary is available for this case at this time.
A-15-845, Maradiaga v. Specialty Finishing and Travelers Indemnity Corporation
Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court, Judge Daniel R. Fridrich
Attorney for Appellant: Terry M. Anderson (Hauptman, O’Brien, Wolf, & Lathrop, P.C.)
Attorneys for Appellees: Patrick B. Donahue and Dennis R. Riekenberg (Cassem, Tierney, Adams, Gotch & Douglas)
Civil Action: Workers’ Compensation
Action Taken by Trial Court: Compensation court dismissed appellant’s amended petition for workers’ compensation benefits after determining that appellant’s ankle fracture in her employer’s parking lot did not arise out of her employment.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Appellant assigns that the compensation court erred in determining that her injury did not arise out of her employment.
A-15-0844, Majid v. US Foods, L.L.C. (Appellant)
Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court, Judge John R. Hoffert
Attorney for Appellant: Christopher A. Sievers (Prentiss Grant LLC)
Attorney for Appellee: Gregory A. Greder
Civil Action: Workers’ Compensation
Action Taken by Trial Court: The compensation court granted Majid’s request that US Foods be required to pay for lumbar fusion surgery under a provision for future medical care contained in its earlier award of workers’ compensation benefits.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: US Foods assigns as error (1) the compensation court’s finding that the requested surgery was causally linked to Majid’s work injury, (2) the compensation court’s finding that the surgery was reasonably necessary, and (3) the compensation court’s rejection of the court-appointed independent medical examiner’s opinion.
A-15-0767 In re Guardianship of Aimee E. Sadowski, an incapacitated and protected person.
Douglas County, Susan Bazis
Attorney for Appellants: Brent M. Kuhn (Brent Kuhn Law)
Attorney for Appellee/Guardian Ad Litem: John M. Walker, Sarah F. Macdissi, Catherine E. French (Lamson, Dugan & Murray, LLP)
Attorney for Appellee/Successor Guardian and Cross-Appellant: Barbara J. Prince
Civil Action: Guardianship
Action Taken by Trial Court: The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees (Sadowski’s guardian and guardian ad litem) finding that appellant (Sadowski’s mother) was not suited to be appointed co-guardian of Sadowski. The trial court also granted appellant’s motion for visitation by providing that such visitation would be determined by the guardian and Sadowski’s treatment team. This court subsequently sustained appellees’ motion for summary dismissal in part, finding that the order granting summary judgment was not a final appealable order, and thereby limiting the issue on appeal to the trial court’s visitation order.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Did the county court err in ordering that visitation between Sadowski and her mother would be determined by the guardian and Sadowski’s treatment team?
Assignment of Error on Cross-Appeal: Did the county court err in granting appellants’ motion for visitation and ordering the visits should resume within 30 days of the court’s order?
A-15-0789, State of Nebraska v. Edward R. Burton (Appellant)
District Court of Buffalo County, District Judge John P. Icenogle
Attorney for Appellant: John H. Marsh (Knapp, Fangmeyer, Aschwege, Besse & Marsh, P.C.)
Attorneys for Appellee: Douglas J. Peterson and George R. Love (Attorney General’s Office)
Criminal Action: Sexual Assault
Action taken by the Trial Court: The jury found Burton guilty of First Degree Sexual Assault, a Class II Felony, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-319. During trial, the district court overruled objections made by Burton concerning the introduction of various photographs and certain witness testimony. The district court sentenced Burton to incarceration for a period not less than 7 years nor more than 15 years, with credit for 288 days served.
Assignments of Error and Issues on Appeal: Did the district court err in overruling Burton’s hearsay objection to witness testimony regarding collected hair samples? Did the district court err in overruling Burton’s relevancy and Rule 404 objections to witness testimony regarding marijuana, hashish, drug paraphernalia, and a sawed-off shotgun? Did the district court err in overruling Burton’s foundation objection and admitting a photograph of hair strands? Did the district court error in overruling Burton’s Rule 403 objection and admitting a photograph depicting marijuana and drug paraphernalia? Did the district court impose an excessive sentence?
A-15-0277, Jeffrey Lake Development, Incorporated, a Nebraska non-profit corporation; and Midway Wildlife & Recreation Club, a Nebraska non-profit corporation, et al., (Appellant) v. Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District, a Nebraska public corporation (Appellee and Cross-Appellant)
Lincoln County, District Court Judge Richard L. Birch
Attorney for Appellant: Steen Windrum (Malcom, Nelsen & Windrum, LLC)
Attorney for Appellee and Cross-Appellant: David J. A. Bargen (Rembolt Ludtke LLP)
Civil Action: Contract interpretation
Action Taken by Trial Court: The trial court determined that paragraph 13 prohibited construction of residential cabins and related structures, including subterranean structures such as footings and sewage systems, below the stated elevations. The trial court further found that these elevations do not apply to boat docks and related structures. Additionally, the trial court interpreted the injunction we prescribed in Jeffrey VI to prohibit Central from enforcing elevation restrictions for repair and replacement of the structures at issue in Jeffrey VI, so long as the repair or replacement is of the same type of item in the same location. The trial court also held that the specific language of the elevation restriction in the lease concerning Jeffrey Lake required only that building “generally” complied with the elevation requirement – that is, slight deviations from the required elevation are permitted under that lease only. The remainder of Jeffrey and Midway’s request for relief was denied.
Assignments of Error on Appeal:
On cross-appeal, Central assigns that the district court erred in (1) failing to find that Jeffrey and Midway failed to state a claim and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction by operation of res judicata; (2) failing to find Jeffrey and Midway’s claims were barred by waiver; (3) applying Jeffrey VI’s injunction to extend to repair and replacement of the same type of items in the same locations; and (4) applying our definition of “generally” from Jeffrey VI in interpreting the elevation restriction at Jeffrey Lake.
A-15-0399, Wilson-Demel v. Demel No case summary is available for this case at this time.
A-15-0426, Sandra L. Spady (Appellant) v. Jerry F. Spady (Appellee and Cross-Appellant)
Adams County, District Court Judge Terri S. Harder
Attorney for Appellant: Nathan T. Bruner (Bruner Frank, LLC)
Attorney for Appellee: Virginia A. Albers and John S. Slowiaczek (Slowiaczek, Albers & Astley, PC, LLO)
Civil Action: Dissolution of marriage
Action Taken by Trial Court: The district court dissolved the parties’ marriage; classified, valued, and divided the parties’ assets; declined to award Sandra permanent alimony; and declined to find Jerry in contempt of court.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: On appeal, Sandra assigns that the district court erred in (1) failing to include Jerry Spady Pontiac Cadillac, Inc. in the marital estate, (2) failing to include 2750 Osborne Drive East in the marital estate, (3) parceling out Bonnavilla Plaza Corporation and failing to include the totality of the corporation in the marital estate, (4) providing Jerry a tax credit for parceling out the corporation, (5) including Jerry’s loan to pay temporary attorney fees in the marital estate, (6) its valuation of a debt known as “account 293,” (7) failing to award Sandra permanent alimony, and (8) failing to find Jerry in contempt of court. On cross-appeal, Jerry assigns that the district court erred in (1) awarding an excessive amount of temporary alimony and (2) granting a $97,500 credit against the equalization payment owed by Sandra for expenses relating to the properties in Mexico.
A-15-0518, In re Estate of Barger No case summary is available for this case at this time.