District Court, D. Nebraska — appointed by Richard Nixon
White v. Smith
District Court, D. Nebraska · 2011-10-19
This case involves plaintiff Joseph E. White's civil rights claims against law enforcement defendants arising from their investigation and prosecution of the Helen Wilson homicide, in which White alleges constitutional violations including lack of probable cause. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds and their motion to strike various affidavits, depositions, and exhibits submitted by the plaintiff. The court denied the motion to strike the Luckeroth and Leo affidavits as moot, overruled objections to the 2010 depositions on grounds that they were not taken in violation of the discovery stay and were not subject to broad hearsay or relevance challenges, and found sufficient evidence in the record, including questions about the veracity of officer affidavits and inconsistencies in witness statements, to create genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. The core reasoning focused on whether the evidence supported a finding that the defendants' conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights, without resolving factual disputes at this stage.
civil rightscriminal lawprocedure
Davis v. Gunter
District Court, D. Nebraska · 2011-03-15
This case originated from a 1988 complaint by Nebraska State Penitentiary inmate Richard Rayes challenging prison restrictions on incoming postage stamps under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The parties settled in 1989 via a Settlement Agreement limiting stamp possession to 40 per inmate and treating excess as contraband, after which the court dismissed the action. In 2010, Rayes sought enforcement through motions for a temporary restraining order and discovery, while defendants moved to terminate the agreement under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court denied the defendants' motion to terminate and dismiss, holding that the 1989 agreement was a private settlement—not a judicially enforceable consent decree—because it was not entered by the court and lacked the required PLRA findings on narrow tailoring and necessity. Rayes's enforcement motions were denied without prejudice, as any remedies must be pursued through a separate breach-of-contract action, potentially in state court.
criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure
United States v. Koch
District Court, D. Nebraska · 2004-12-22 · cited 11×
The case involved a lawsuit by the United States against defendant John R. Koch alleging a pattern of sexual harassment against female tenants and prospective tenants in violation of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq. At trial, after the plaintiff's case, the defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing that claims based on discriminatory acts occurring after tenants took possession of rental properties could not be maintained under FHA sections 3604(a-c) or 3617. The court denied the motion, holding that post-acquisition claims are actionable. It relied on Eighth Circuit precedent in Neudecker v. Boisclair Corp., which recognized hostile housing environment and retaliation claims under the FHA for conduct during tenancy, and extended that reasoning to sexual harassment while rejecting the defendant's statutory interpretation and policy arguments.
civil rightspropertyprocedure
Sanchez-Wentz v. Barnhart
District Court, D. Nebraska · 2002-08-23
The case concerns plaintiff Armandina Sanchez-Wentz's challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her application for Title II disability insurance benefits, based on alleged impairments including a mitral valve replacement, congestive heart failure, diabetes, and other conditions that she claimed prevented full-time work since 1999. An ALJ determined that her impairments were severe but did not meet a listed impairment, that she lacked credibility on the extent of her limitations, and that she retained the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work including her past relevant job as a social worker/administrator. The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. On review of the administrative record, the district court applied the substantial-evidence standard and concluded that the Commissioner's findings were adequately supported, leading to affirmance of the denial of benefits and dismissal of the complaint.
federal powerhealthcare
Wallace v. VALENTINO'S OF LINCOLN, INC.
District Court, D. Nebraska · 2002-08-22
The case involved a Title VII claim by a former employee against Valentino’s of Lincoln, Inc., alleging sex discrimination through a hostile work environment created by non-supervisory coworkers and constructive discharge. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff could not prove the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to remedy it, and that her resignation was unreasonable. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on whether the plaintiff’s complaints to supervisors provided sufficient notice and whether her quitting was a foreseeable result of the employer’s response. It also rejected extending the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense to non-supervisory harassment and declined to bar back/front pay claims under Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC. The motion to strike certain evidence was denied as moot.
civil rightslabor & employment
Fanselow v. Rice
District Court, D. Nebraska · 2002-07-30 · cited 10×
This case arose from a 2000 car-truck collision in Nebraska that injured two Colorado residents and caused one death; the plaintiffs sued the Minnesota-based trucking company and its Texas-then-Oregon driver in Texas federal court, after which the case was transferred to Nebraska. The sole disputed issue was which state's law governed the availability of punitive damages, with the plaintiffs seeking the laws of Minnesota, Texas, or Oregon and the defendants arguing for Nebraska's constitutional ban on such damages. Applying Texas choice-of-law rules under the Van Dusen doctrine because the transfer occurred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the court used the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 145 factors and determined that Minnesota law applies to the claims against the corporate defendant and Oregon law applies to the claims against the individual driver, as those states had the strongest interests in regulating punitive damages for their residents.
proceduretorts & liability