Nebraska Court of Appeals in an unpublished decision reduces Lancaster County Court small claims judgment from $2700 to about $150, the cost a veterinarian's bill homeowners incurred while caring for friends pet chihuahua dog she "bailed" to them for several months. Derr v. Linville, A-09-310This case involves the saga of Lola, the “left behind, but apparently much loved,” Chihuahua dog that the parties have litigated through three levels of our judicial system. Heather Linville (Heather) appeals from the decision of the district court for Lancaster County entering judgment in favor of Travis Derr (Travis) and Natasha Combs (Natasha) for $2,700, which the lower courts assessed against Heather because she left her dog, Lola, in the care and safekeeping of Travis and Natasha for nearly a year...the district court was clearly wrong in awarding judgment in the amount of $2,700, because under the applicable law, Travis and Natasha are only entitled to be reimbursed for actual expenses they incurred while caring for Lola, and the only proof of such was one vet bill. Therefore, Travis and Natasha are entitled to be reimbursed $152.98 for the July 2 vet visit. Thus, we affirm the judgment in favor of Travis and Natasha but modify such to the sum of $152.98.

Neighboring property owners in rural Douglas County win reversal of their injunction action against dog groomers who wanted to open a dog kennel. Conley v. Brazer, S-08-974, 278 Neb. 508 Supreme Court reverses the District Court's summary judgment in favor of the dog kennel owners. "Section 23-168.02(1) states that "[a]n appeal to the board of adjustment may be taken by any person or persons aggrieved . . . by any decision of an administrative officer or planning commission ..§ 23-114.05 establishes that an appeal to a board of adjustment is not the exclusive remedy for challenging a land use alleged to be in violation of zoning regulations. an aggrieved party may use § 23-114.05 to seek injunction of land use in violation of regulations. The kennel's neighbors were authorized to sue by § 23-114.05 independent of the remedies offered by §§ 23-168.01 to 23-168.04 . We conclude that the Conleys were entitled to seek injunctive relief without first resorting to the appeal procedure set forth in §§ 23-168.01 to 23-168.04. We further conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Brazers, Paradise Pet Suites, Douglas County, the City of Omaha, and the other named defendants because there are genuine issues of material fact pertaining to the Conleys’ requests for injunctive and declaratory relief