Friday April 8 2005 result in Supreme Court

Kam v. IBP, inc., 269 Neb. 622 (2005): on petition for further review, summarily uphelp decision of court of appeals in same case 12 Neb. App. 855, 686 N.W.2d 631 (2004), essentially holding that a worker on temporary partial disability cannot by definition be totally disabled.

Hanchera v. Board of Adjustment, 269 Neb. 623 Filed April 8, 2005. No. S-03-1175: large hog lot tried to grandfather itself into Red Willow County Land before new regulations took effect. Court held this was in bad faith.

Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. City of Lincoln, 269 Neb. 631 (4-8-2005) {appeal dismissed because it was not a final order in multi-party lawsuit, causing Allied to take to trial recovery action against City of LIncoln for >$330k}In March 1998, Sarah Cockson and her sis ter Laura Cockson were travelling on Cornhusker Highway when Jeffrey Ireland was fleeing pursuing police officers northbound on North 1st Street, in Lincoln. Jeffrey had a suspended drivers license and multiple drunk driving convictions. An exgirlfriend had killed his son about a year before from neglectful care. Laura was killed and Sarah was critically injured when they collided with Jeffrey Ireland. Allied Insurance Company and Genesis Insurance Company sued the City of Lincoln to determine who should pick up the tab for the City's liability. Incidentally Allied had loaned the City over $300k to settle the police pursuit case, while the court's litigated whether the polic pursuit case was insurable. All parties moved for summary judgment. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Genesis because it only covered buses and denied summary judgment for Allied and the city, stating that whether an exclusion in allieds policy for intentional acts applied to the police pursuit case required a trial, and was not appropriate for summary judgment. Parties seeking to a rehearing prior to appealing an adverse summary judgment must now be careful to couch their requested relief in terms of Section 25-1912(1), Also parties must be careful to request certification under 25-1315 that the decision they seek to appeal in a multi-party case should be "final." {comparable to Federal Civil Procedure Rule 54b on notice of appeal in multi-party/claim cases, see discussion here} Allied lost its appeal however becuase the district court never found the claims against it to be final orders in a multi-party case, see § 25-1315,. Consequently, there is no final order under § 25-1315, and as a result, th appeals court did not have jursdiction over Allied's appeal.

State v. Jonusas, 269 Neb. 644; Defendant convicted of theft by unlawful taking (28-511) when he promised to broker purchase of a business but instead spent the money. The district court sentenced Jonusas for the offense of theft by deception after it had convicted him of theft by unlawful taking or disposition, but the court did not take this as plain error.

State ex rel. Counsel for Dis. v. Sutton, 269 Neb. 640; Attorney already suspended for neglecting legal matters faced further grievances but did not respond. As the Court suspected from the initial case, the lawyer might be out of it, it gave the lawyer a chance to respond, if ever, by ordering additional discipline of indefinite suspension, on top of the initial 1 year suspension. Mr Sutton forgot that the Counsel for Discipline may work on its complaints when it feels like it, open secret that some grievances remain open indefinitely until there is something else on which the Counsel for Discipline can piggy back the heretofore unimportant grievance.