Rhiley v. Zitterkopf

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Rhiley v. Zitterkopf

Case Number
Call Date
August 30, 2018
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Case Location
Case Summary

S-17-1261 Billy D. Rhiley, et al (Appellant) v. Nebraska State Patrol

Hall County District Court, Judge John H. Marsh

Attorneys: Jared J. Krejci (Leininger, Smith, Johnson, Baack, Placzek & Allen)(Appellant) --- David A. Lopez (Attorney General’s Office)

Civil: Summary judgment; expungement; writ of mandamus; Security, Privacy, and Dissemination of Criminal History Information Act (SPDCHI Act)

Proceedings below: The district court granted Appellee/Cross-Appellant’s motion for summary judgment.

Issues: The District Court erred in 1) in granting the Patrol’s motion for summary judgment

and dismissing the case with prejudice, 2) in sustaining the Patrol’s hearsay objection to parts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 15 of Exhibit 4, 3) to the extent that it did not consider the totality of Exhibit 5, 4) erred in determining that this action is moot, 5) in determining that no mootness exceptions applied, 6) in determining that Appellant failed to use the notification Procedure, 7) in determining that Appellant needed to utilize the notification procedure to maintain this action in the District Court, 8) in allowing the Patrol to rely on an administrative exhaustion defense which was not asserted in the Patrol’s Answer, 9) in determining that the notification procedure facially applied to all of the relief sought in this action, 10) to the extent it determined that the Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice has rulemaking authority over Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3523, 11) in determining that the notification procedure gave

Appellant a plain and adequate remedy at law, 12) in failing to find the notification procedure invalid to the extent it conflicts with the SPDCHI Act’s mandamus right, 13) in failing to bind the Patrol by its guidance documents.

Issues on Cross-Appeal:  The district court erred by failing to dismiss Appellant’s mandamus action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where mandamus was sought directly against the Patrol, a State agency, and was therefore barred by sovereign immunity.


Schedule Code