TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Nicholas Family Limited Ptnshp.

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Nicholas Family Limited Ptnshp.

Additional Case Names

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Pongratz

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Steskal

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Milliron Ranch Corporation

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Smith

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Miller

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Cleary

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Ramold

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Troester

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Kilmurry

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Hipke

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Kilmurry

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Breiner

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. TMAG Ranch, LLC

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Miller

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Peterson

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. LJM Farms, LLC

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Hipke

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Crumly

Case Number
S-17-0116)
S-17-0117)
S-17-0118)
S-17-0119)
S-17-0120)
S-17-0121)
S-17-0122)
S-17-0123)
S-17-0124)
S-17-0125)
S-17-0126)
S-17-0127)
S-17-0128)
S-17-0129)
S-17-0130)
S-17-0131)
S-17-0132)
S-17-0133)
S-17-0134)
Call Date
January 9, 2018
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Holt
Case Location
Lincoln
Case Summary

S-17-0116) TRANSCANADA KEYSTONE PIPELINE, LP (Appellant) v.

NICHOLAS FAMILY L.P., et al. – Case No. S-17-116

RICHARD J. PONGRATZ, et al. – Case No. S-17-117

BYRON TERRY STESKAL, et al. – Case No. S-17-118

MILLIRON RANCH CORPORATION, et al – Case No. S-17-119

VERDON L. SMITH, et al. – Case No. S-17-120

EARL R. MILLER, et al. – Case No. S-17-121

LARRY D. CLEARY, Trustee, Irene Cleary Trust Agreement, et al. – Case No. S-17-122

CONSTANCE RAMOLD, et al. – Case No. S-17-123

SHARYN TROESTER, et al. – Case No. S-17-124

RICHARD M. KILMURRY, et al. – Case No. S-17-125

LLOYD Z. HIPKE, et al. – Case No. S-17-126

ROSEMARY KILMURRY, et al. – Case No. S-17-127

L.A. BREINER, et al. – Case No. S-17-128

TMAG RANCH, LLC, et al. – Case No. S-17-129

GLEN A. MILLER, et al. – Case No. S-17-130

TIMOTHY C. PETERSON, et al. – Case No. S-17-131

LJM FARMS, LLC – Case No. S-17-132

R.W. HIPKE, et al. – Case No. S-17-133

RONALD C. CRUMLY, et al. – Case No. S-17-134

Holt County, Judge Mark D. Kozisek

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 Keystone waived its hearsay objections to the Landowners’ affidavits and holding the County Court did not commit reversible error by receiving those affidavits into evidence. 2. The District Court erred in remanding the cases to the 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. 3. The district court erred by holding that an application for statutory attorney’s fees under § 76-726 requires evidence of legal fees actually “paid” where the evidence proves the sums have been incurred. 4. The district court erred when it held an affidavit evidence received by the county court was hearsay.

Schedule Code
SC