Nebraska Supreme Court affirms Seward County District Court's dismissal of landowner's suit for lacking standing against the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission in which plaintiff tried to force the Game and Parks Commission to halt power line construction over the Twin Lakes Recreation Area. State ex rel. Reed v. State, S-08-1261, 278 Neb. 564. A proposed power line project over the Twin Lakes area would allegedly disturb the livelihood of the the Western Prairie Fringed Orchid, which has been identified as a "threatened and/or endangered species" by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the State of Nebraska. Plaintiff sought to impose upon NGPC his opinions regarding the administration of the state’s wildlife management areas. By law, NGPC is charged with this responsibility. See § 37-336. Plaintiff's claim that NGPC has breached its duties does not give Plaintiff the right to seek relief in the courts. Such concerns are better left to the policy decisions of the legislative and executive branches. Certainly, the public has a right to influence NGPC’s policies regarding the administration of the state’s wildlife management areas. However, the mechanism for doing so is through our representative form of government, and not through the courts. See Ritchhart v. Daub, 256 Neb. 801, 594 N.W.2d 288 (1999). Plaintiff has not shown that he has standing to bring the action."

"The case is over and done." Nebraska Supreme Court overrules most recent iteration of family dispute over assets of local Omaha business and refuses to reinstate lawsuit against company that some relatives brought. Ferer v. Aaron Ferer & Sons, S-08-534, 278 Neb. 282 "Appellants also claim the district court erred in denying their motion for an order nunc pro tunc reinstating their ...cause of action for involuntary liquidation.The (trial court in its order) expressly stated that it intended to dismiss the sixth cause of action and that the dismissal was "no mistake." We find that the court has been extremely patient in dealing with appellants’ repeated attempts to retry issues that have previously been decided. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion for an order nunc pro tunc. we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow appellants to resurrect causes of action that have merely been repackaged and rewrapped. The (plaintiffs' case of Aaron versus defendants) is over and done.

Lincoln chiropractor who had earlier career as a mortician loses another attempt to reduce alimony award. Metcalf v. Metcalf, S-07-1346, 278 Neb. 258 Nebraska Supreme Court modifies rule on changed circumstances when to allow modification of a divorce decree. "a judgment for alimony may be modified only upon a showing of facts or circumstances that have changed since the last order granting or denying modification was entered. But once some change has been established since the last request, the analysis focuses on the change in circumstances since alimony was originally awarded or last modified. We adopt this rule because it recognizes the force of res judicata; modification will be considered only when there has been a change in circumstances since the last request for modification. But if there has been no change, modification is not justified, because the request is essentially the same as the last request."