Robert G. Simmons

This case involved a dispute over a conditional sales contract for a house trailer originally purchased by the Hobbs from Burnett’s Home Trailer Sales under what was alleged to be a usurious arrangement violating Nebraska’s Installment Loan Act. After the contract was assigned to the bank, plaintiff Rader assumed the payments via an agreement that released the original buyers, made several payments, and then sued to declare the contract void and recover amounts paid. The trial court ruled for the plaintiff, awarding damages and finding conversion, but the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the action. The court held that a cause of action or defense based on usury is personal to the borrower and those in legal privity and is not assignable to a stranger to the original transaction, as the statutes aim to protect necessitous borrowers rather than permit windfalls.

business & regulatory

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by Thomas W. Singles against Union Pacific Railroad Company for negligence in its switchyard operations that caused severe injuries to Singles while he worked for the Railway Express Agency, including the loss of his foot and part of his leg; the Railway Express Agency was also named due to subrogation rights under workers' compensation. A jury awarded Singles $124,765, but the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial. The core reasoning was that the trial court committed prejudicial error by allowing testimony about pension benefits Singles received, which was immaterial and incompetent, and the court held that such evidence must be excluded in any retrial while declining to resolve other claimed errors regarding jury instructions on future damages and exhibits.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a dispute over title to an 81.58-acre tract of land, including an island and related accretion and reliction in the Missouri River east of Washington County, Nebraska. Plaintiff Krimlofski sought to quiet title based on his adverse possession since the 1920s through hunting, fishing, and related activities, while defendant Uerling claimed ownership via a chain of title from a government lot on the west bank plus her own adverse possession. The district court ruled for the plaintiff, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence established the plaintiff's actual, open, exclusive, and continuous possession under a claim of ownership for more than the required 10-year statutory period. The court further reasoned that the disputed land was accretion attached to the island rather than the mainland and that the defendant had not proven her own adverse possession claim, applying precedents on riparian rights and island accretion.

property

This case involved a conversion action by Alf Elander against Kellogg Grain Company and Theodore Apolius to recover the unpaid balance on a note secured by a chattel mortgage on 6,000 bushels of wheat stored in granaries in Keith County, Nebraska. Apolius sold approximately 3,500 bushels of wheat to Kellogg without the plaintiff's consent or knowledge, and the plaintiff alleged that Kellogg converted the mortgaged property by failing to pay him. The trial court sustained a motion for directed verdict and dismissed the case at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed that ruling. The court held that the mortgage description was too indefinite to identify the specific wheat covered against third parties because the granaries held far more than 6,000 bushels with no clear means of separation, and that the plaintiff failed to prove the sold wheat came from his security since more than 6,000 bushels remained afterward.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

This case was a civil contempt proceeding brought by the Kaspareks against the Mays for alleged violations of a 1956 district court decree that required removal of a dike obstructing the natural flood channel of the Little Blue River on the Mays' Jefferson County, Nebraska property or, alternatively, partial removal plus construction of a sufficient drainage ditch. The trial court found the Mays in contempt but not willful or contumacious, interpreted the decree to require lowering the dike only to an 82-foot ground level, upheld the existing ditch as sufficient, and struck damage claims from the proceeding. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the Mays bore the burden to fully comply with the decree and had failed to do so by not lowering the dike to natural ground level or properly extending the ditch, that willful contempt was shown despite mitigating factors, that costs and expenses could be recovered in contempt actions, and that damages could not; it remanded with directions for specific compliance measures within 90 days, including lowering the dike to 80.5 feet and restoring/extending the ditch.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a pedestrian, Esther Hiner, suing driver Jerry Nelson for damages after being struck by his car in Omaha, Nebraska. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed, claiming errors in the jury instructions regarding contributory negligence, the definition of preponderance of the evidence, and the overall clarity of the instructions on negligence and comparative fault. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the instructions, when considered as a whole, correctly stated the law, were not confusing, and adequately explained the burden of proof and the process for comparing negligence under the state's comparative negligence rules.

torts & liabilityprocedure