Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

In 2009, Bonnie Nichols and Margie Nichols were married in Iowa. In 2012, Bonnie filed a complaint in a Nebraska court to dissolve the union. Margie filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that a Nebraska court lacked jurisdiction to dissolve a same-sex marriage. The district court granted Margie’s motion to dismiss for subject matter jurisdiction. The district court’s order purported to dismiss Bonnie’s complaint if Bonnie failed to amend it within fifteen days. Bonnie did not file an amended complaint, and the district court did not enter a judgment dismissing the action. Bonnie appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Bonnie appealed from a conditional order and not a final judgment, and therefore, the Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Nichols v. Nichols" on Justia Law

RFD-TV, LLC, a television programming service, executed an affiliation agreement with Sunflower Broadband Corporation that granted Sunflower a nonexclusive right to distribute RFD programming to Sunflower’s subscribers in Kansas in exchange for a fee. Knology, Inc., subsequently purchased Sunflower’s assets. Prior to this purchase Knology was providing cable service to subscribers in South Dakota. Knology later became a wholly owned subsidiary of WOW! Cable. Two years later, Knology and WOW ceased distribution of RFD programming and did not pay fees. RFD sued Knology and WOW (collectively, Appellees) for breach of contract. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over them. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the minimum contacts requirement between Appellees, as nonresident defendants, and the State had not been met. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the district court (1) did not err in dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction; and (2) erred in dismissing the case with prejudice. View "RFD-TV v. WildOpenFence Fin." on Justia Law

Russell Reichert sued Sherry Hara in small claims court, claiming that Hara owed him for a $4,000 loan he gave her. The court found the transaction was a loan and entered judgment for Reichert. Hara subsequently filed a complaint for declaratory judgment in the district court, alleging that the $4,000 was a gift and not a loan. The district court dismissed Hara’s complaint, concluding that the action was barred by both claim preclusion and issue preclusion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) claim preclusion, but not issue preclusion, applies to small claims court judgments; and (2) the elements of claim preclusion were satisfied in this case, and therefore, the district court correctly dismissed Hara’s action. View "Hara v. Reichert" on Justia Law

Appellants filed a products liability action against Daimler-Chrysler Corporation after they were involved in a rollover collision while driving their Chrysler PT Cruiser. Appellants later filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Allianz Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft (“Allianz”), an international insurance company that provided insurance to Chrysler, alleging that Allianz had a duty to defend Chrysler in the underlying action. The district court granted summary judgment for Allianz and dismissed the complaint. Twenty months later, Appellants filed a complaint to vacate the summary judgment. The district court sustained Allianz’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the time for exercise of the district court’s inherent power to vacate its judgment had expired; (2) the district court lacked jurisdiction to vacate its judgment because Appellants did not properly serve Allianz; and (3) the district court did not err in invoking its equity jurisdiction to vacate where Appellants had an adequate remedy at law. View "Carlson v. Allianz Versicherungs-Aktiengesellschaft" on Justia Law

Attorney represented Plaintiff in a negligence lawsuit against Defendant. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Attorney subsequently made an oral motion for payment of attorney fees and costs in the underlying negligence lawsuit. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order granting Attorney’s oral motion and dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal because (1) Attorney never filed a petition in intervention, and therefore, at the time of his oral motion, Attorney was not a party to the suit; (2) furthermore, Attorney stated at the time he made his motion that he no longer represented Plaintiff; and (3) therefore, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide Attorney’s oral motion for payment. View "Wisniewski v. Heartland Towing, Inc." on Justia Law