Nebraska Court of Appeals in unpublished decision affirms bench trial judgment in favor of photographer at a middle school volleyball game for $50000 after she fell from a three-legged referee's stool during a game. #

• Linner v. Wilcox-Hildreth Pub. Sch., A-09-257

Wilcox-Hildreth Public Schools (the School) appeals a judgment entered by the district court after a bench trial in this negligence action brought by Tammy S. Linner after she fell from a three-legged volleyball stand provided by the School for her use while photographing a junior high school volleyball team. On appeal, the School asserts that the judgment was contrary to the law and evidence and challenges the court’s ruling on an objection to Linner’s proffer of a deposition. We find no merit to the assignments of error.

E-mail "harassment" case earns further review to the Nebraska Supreme Court: No. S-08-628: State v. Drahota, 17 Neb. App. 678 (2009). Petition of appellant for further review sustained on September 30, 2009.

Nebraska Supreme Court affirms Court of Industrial Relations decision to award back pay to former Dakota County School District speech teacher whom the District had improperly classified as a long term substitute teacher. South Sioux City Ed. Assn. v. Dakota Cty. Sch. Dist., S-08-1307, 278 Neb. 572. The District unilaterally decided to end (speech teacher’s) employment in December after she taught nearly every day of the first semester. authority of the Association and its rights would be undermined if the District were allowed to unilaterally designate probationary teachers as long-term substitutes. The District’s designation of speech teacher as a long-term substitute had the effect of unilaterally removing her from the bargaining unit. he CIR correctly concluded that speech teacher was not a long-term substitute, but performed as a probationary certificated employee and was therefore a member of the bargaining unit. The act of unilaterally paying speech teacher on a basis other than as provided in the Agreement and without bargaining with the Association about such a change was a violation of § 48-824.

Nebraska Supreme Court affirms summary judgment against tenured Creighton language professor who sued a PHD student for maliciously filing a harassment complaint against her. Recio v. Evers, S-07-1338, 278 Neb. 405 We conclude that a person cannot incur liability for interfering with a business relationship by giving truthful information to another. In this case, Recio’s claim for tortious interference with a business relationship rested on Evers’ sexual harassment complaint, and the record establishes that the material allegations of Evers’ complaint were truthful. And even if actual malice can defeat a defense that interference with a business relationship was justified, there is insufficient evidence in the record to show that Evers’ sexual harassment complaint was motivated by actual malice. Therefore, the district court correctly concluded that Evers’ sexual harassment complaint was justified.

Nebraska Court of Appeals reverses teacher's dismissal when it found the Millard School Board violated the Nebraska Open Meetings Law when it made its decision in a closed session. Rominger Legal.Com. The case involves the 2006 firing of Tanya Bligh, who was a teacher at Russell Middle School. Following four days of hearings, the board determined that Bligh was an incompetent teacher and failed to meet Millard's performance standards, according to co rt records. But in terminating Bligh's contract, the board voted in closed session, the appeals court found. Bligh v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 0017, A-07-283, A-07-284the Board held its vote on Bligh’s contract in closed session. The Board announced the decision in open session, but failed to actually hold the vote in open session. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 79-829 (Reissue 2003) specifically provides that a teacher’s contract shall be deemed continuing and remain in full force unless the school board “by a vote of the majority of its members” determines that the contract should be terminated. We can think of no more “formal action” with respect to the termination of a teacher’s contract than the actual vote of the school board. In this case, the Board failed to comply with § 79-832 because the Board failed to take its “formal action” in open session. As such, we conclude that the district court’s orders in both appeals should be reversed, and we need not address the remaining errors alleged by Bligh.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals won't party on. 20 USC 1091(r) excluded some students from eligibility for federal student loans if they have a record of drug convictions. Students for a Sensible Drug policy sued to invalidate the laws in the District Court of South Dakota, contending the laws result in double punishments, contrary to the Double Jeopardy Clause. Eighth Circuti Court of Appeals affirms, finding the law is a civil remedy and the exclusion provisions relate rationally to the purpose of keeping dope head kids out of college. Protestants for the Common Good, and United Church ofChrist, Justice and Witness Ministries,joinded the case as amici, wonder what side they were on? 071159P.pdf 04/29/2008 Students for Sensible Drug Pol v. Margaret Spellings U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota [PUBLISHED] [Benton, Author, with John R. Gibson and Wollman, Circuit Judges]"section 20 USC 1091(r) is meant to deter other students from possessing or selling drugs on campus, it also encourages rehabilitation, school safety, a drug-free society, and ensuring tax dollars are spent on students who obey the laws. The statute is rationally related to these alternative purposes. “The Act’s rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose is a ‘[m]ost significant’ factor in our determination that the statute’s effects are not punitive.” And the statute is not excessive in relation to these alternative purposes."

Last week's Nebraska Supreme Court decision In re Interest of Kevin K., S-06-447, 274 Neb. 678 might shed some light on Gary Lacey's crying need for more attorney help in the Lancaster County Attorney's office. The juvenile court asserted jurisdiction over the child because he was a truant (§ 43-247(3)(b)), something the Supreme Court calls a "status crime" (§ 43-245(15) (Reissue 2004)). After the child reached 16 his mother released him from attending public school. See 79-201. The juvenile court terminated jurisdiction. The State DHHS agreed with the juvenile judge's decision to close the case. The Lancaster County Attorney did the appealing. No wonder you are short handed Gary, you are trying to keep cases in the system that should be closed. The Supreme Court, J. Stephan affirms closing the case.where a juvenile is adjudicated solely on the basis of habitual truancy from school pursuant to § 43-247(3)(b), and the status of truancy is subsequently terminated by the lawful execution of a parental release authorizing discontinuation of school enrollment pursuant to § 79-201(3)(d), a juvenile court may terminate its jurisdiction without a finding that such termination is in the best interests of the juvenile.

Justice William Connolly again hands a victory to bigger government units over smaller ones. This time he allows the reorganized Lyons-Decatur School District to bait and switch Decatur residents into believing they would have a say in whether the school district would keep their local school open. Citizens for Equal Education v. Lyons-Decatur Sch. Dist., S-06-159, 274 Neb. 278. Justice Connolly just cant help himself from finding "absurd results" from the plain meaning of statutes. This time he finds that an agreement between the residents of Decatur and Lyons when they merged their school districts in 1984 that the Decatur school would not close unless a majority of the Decatur voters approved did not mean that because that would be an "absurd" result. Section 79-419 said just that, but that would get in the way of consolidating small town schools into large ones that would support lots of extra staff. We really should be grateful for Justice Connolly for doing the Legislature's job. After all his Supreme Court justice's salary takes care of a baker's dozen of unicameral members.

Follow up: on remand the Nebraska Supreme Court again reverses the Commission on Industrial Relations in the dispute between the Hyannis Educational Association and the Grant Public School District ; Supreme Court rules in favor of school district that "deviation clauses" from union contracts between several other school districts and teachers' representatives were prevalent, whether they had open-ended or specified conditions, and therefore the CIR erred when it threw out the school district's deviation clause. Hyannis Educational Assn. v. Grant County. Sch. Dist. No. 38-0011, S-06-300The Supreme Court also declined to moot the case because of the Legislature's Class I Schools' consolidation bill from two years ago, 2005 Neb. Laws, L.B. 126.

Since the Supreme court's plate is pretty full halting the death penalty, it avoids complete chaos and decides not to step into one of the school funding lawsuits. Nebraska Coalition for Ed. Equity v. Heineman, S-05-1357, 273 Neb. 531Justice Connolly backs off a little and a unanimous Nebraska Supreme Court agrees that whether the State is funding education equitably is a problem for the Unicameral and school districts, not the Courts. Still it's hard to keep this crusading Justice who is used to righting every wrong down. Note his peculiar lament in the concluding paragraph of his opinion: "The Nebraska Constitution (says education is the) Legislature's (job) and fails to provide judicially discernible and manageable standards for determining what level of public education the Legislature must provide (emphasis supplied.) This court could not make that determination without deciding matters of educational policy in disregard of the policy and fiscal choices that the Legislature has already made. Nor could we impose a constitutional standard of a “quality” education without ignoring the people’s clear rejection of that standard in 1996. We conclude, as the district court did, that the claims therefore present nonjusticiable political questions." The Omaha Schools funding lawsuit will proceed on equal protection grounds.

Follow up to Nicholson v Red Willow County School District Nebraska Supreme Court again dismisses action residents in Southwest School District in Red Willow County filed to prevent merged district from assuming bonds the preceding school districts had issued prior to merger.Cumming v. Red Willow Sch. Dist. No. 179S-06-025, 273 Neb. 483We reject the argument that Stannard permits a collateral attack directed at the authority of S outhwest to issue bonds pursuant to the reorganization plan approved by the State Committee. T he appellants are not contesting the legitimacy of S outhwest as a school district and, thus, cannot be understood to be challenging the S tate Committee’s approval of the reorganization petition itself. Instead, the appellants are challenging a provision contained within the approved petition. A nd unlike Stannard, we cannot say that the challenged provision is, on its face, clearly and unequivocally prohibited by state law. Therefore, we have no basis to find that the S tate Committee’s approval of the reorganization petition was void

Hyannis Ed. Assn. v. Grant Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 38-0011, 269 Neb. 956 June 10, 2005. No. S-04-133.

Industrial Relations Commission did not have to resolve moot dispute between teachers association and Class IV school district about fringe benefits for school year already past. Commission however must resolve dispute about whether District contract's deviation clause would apply even though there was no clause present from disputed contract year. The Industrial Commission should employ"prevalence" analysis in determining the deviation dispute. finally the Court upholds Commissions referring to comparable school districts salaries of the same class and kind geographic area.