Barnett v. Happy Cab Co.
311 Neb. 464
| Neb. | 2022Background
- Jeremy Barnett sued taxi driver Richard Kincaid, Happy Cab Co., and Checker Cab for injuries sustained getting into a cab in 2011.
- Days before trial, counsel for the defendants filed an offer to confess judgment for $75,000; Barnett accepted but his acceptance was limited to Happy Cab and Paratransit Insurance (Happy Cab’s insurer, not a party).
- The district court first entered judgment against Happy Cab only, then amended to enter judgment against all appellees; Barnett appealed.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals held there was no effective acceptance (no meeting of the minds) and vacated the judgments, directing the district court to return the parties to their pre-offer position.
- After the mandate issued, appellees asserted Happy Cab and Paratransit Insurance had issued and Barnett’s counsel had cashed $25,000 and $50,000 checks; the district court ordered Barnett to repay those amounts as required by the mandate, and when he did not, dismissed his case for noncompliance.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the repayment order and the dismissal, holding the district court lacked authority to order repayment based on the appellate mandate and abused its discretion in dismissing the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could order Barnett to repay funds he received from Happy Cab and Paratransit Insurance | Barnett: the Court of Appeals’ mandate did not require repayment; the November 2019 payments were under a new settlement agreement, not compulsory satisfaction of a judgment | Appellees: the payments were made to satisfy the now-vacated judgment and retention would unjustly enrich Barnett; mandate required return to pre-offer status | Court: Mandate did not direct repayment; district court lacked authority to order return on this record — repayment order vacated |
| Whether dismissal of Barnett’s case for failing to repay was proper sanction | Barnett: dismissal improper because the repayment order was unauthorized | Appellees: noncompliance justified dismissal | Court: Dismissal was an abuse of discretion because it was based on an order the district court lacked authority to enter — dismissal vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Tanderup, 305 Neb. 493, 941 N.W.2d 145 (2020) (construction of an appellate mandate is a question of law)
- State v. Payne, 298 Neb. 373, 904 N.W.2d 275 (2017) (lower courts must follow appellate mandates and may not modify them)
- Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713, 592 N.W.2d 894 (1999) (standard of review for sanctions is abuse of discretion)
- Barnett v. Happy Cab Co., 28 Neb. App. 438, 945 N.W.2d 200 (2020) (Court of Appeals concluded there was no effective acceptance of the offer to confess judgment and vacated the district court’s judgments)
- Washa v. Miller, 249 Neb. 941, 546 N.W.2d 813 (1996) (recognizes unjust enrichment as a cause of action)