Barnett v. Happy Cab Co., 311 Neb. 464

In January 2011 Barnett was injured while getting into a taxicab and sued the driver (Kincaid) and two taxi companies (Happy Cab and Checker Cab) alleging negligence and respondeat superior.
Days before trial defendants’ counsel filed an offer to confess judgment for $75,000 that was internally inconsistent about which parties made the offer; Barnett accepted the offer but the acceptance limited it to Happy Cab and Paratransit Insurance Co. (an insurer not a party).
The district court first entered judgment against Happy Cab only, then (after a motion) amended that judgment to enter $75,000 against all appellees (Happy Cab, Checker Cab, and Kincaid).
The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the judgments, holding there was no meeting of the minds and directing the district court to vacate its orders, restoring the parties to their pre-offer positions; its mandate issued on August 14, 2020.
While the amended judgment stood, Happy Cab and Paratransit Insurance issued checks ($25,000 and $50,000) that Barnett’s counsel received and cashed in Nov. 2019; appellees later asked the district court to enforce the appellate mandate and to order repayment of those funds.
The district court ordered Barnett to repay $25,000 and $50,000, and when he did not, dismissed his suit for noncompliance; Barnett appealed and the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court had authority to order repayment and to dismiss the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court was required by the Court of Appeals’ mandate to order Barnett to repay the $25,000 and $50,000 payments	Barnett: mandate did not require repayment; payments were pursuant to a separate settlement and not subject to reversal	Appellees: mandate restored parties to pre-offer position, so Barnett must return funds paid to satisfy the now-vacated judgment	Court: Mandate did not require repayment; district court lacked authority to order return of funds on that basis
Whether dismissal for failure to repay was an appropriate sanction	Barnett: dismissal was abuse of discretion because the repayment order itself lacked authority	Appellees: noncompliance justified dismissal	Court: Dismissal was an abuse of discretion because it enforced an order the court lacked authority to enter; dismissal vacated

Barnett v. Happy Cab Co., 28 Neb. App. 438, 945 N.W.2d 200 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020) (Court of Appeals reversed and vacated judgments based on offer to confess judgment for lack of meeting of the minds)
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Tanderup, 305 Neb. 493, 941 N.W.2d 145 (Neb. 2020) (mandate construction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
State v. Payne, 298 Neb. 373, 904 N.W.2d 275 (Neb. 2017) (lower court must follow appellate mandate and may not modify it)
Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713, 592 N.W.2d 894 (Neb. 1999) (standard of review for trial court sanctions is abuse of discretion)
Washa v. Miller, 249 Neb. 941, 546 N.W.2d 813 (Neb. 1996) (recognition of unjust enrichment as a cause of action)
Rylee v. Marett, Sheriff, 121 S.C. 366, 113 S.E. 483 (S.C. 1922) (concurrence noting consequences of imprecise drafting)
In re Supreme Court Commissioners, 100 Neb. 426, 160 N.W. 737 (Neb. 1916) (historical reference cited by concurrence)