Barnett v. Happy Cab Co., 973 N.W.2d 183

In 2011 Barnett was injured while getting into a taxicab and sued the driver (Kincaid) and two cab companies (Happy Cab and Checker Cab) alleging negligence and respondeat superior.
Days before trial, counsel filed an offer to confess judgment for $75,000 that referenced Happy Cab and Paratransit Insurance (Happy Cab’s insurer); Barnett accepted the offer but his acceptance was limited to Happy Cab and Paratransit Insurance.
The district court first entered judgment against Happy Cab only, then amended its order to enter judgment against all appellees; appellees later paid $25,000 and $50,000 (checks) to Barnett’s counsel while an appeal was pending.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals held there was no effective acceptance (no meeting of the minds) and vacated the district court judgments, directing the district court to conform to its opinion and placing the parties back in their pre-offer positions.
After the appellate mandate issued, appellees moved to enforce it; the district court ordered Barnett to repay the $25,000 and $50,000 and, when he did not, dismissed his suit as a sanction.
The Nebraska Supreme Court concluded the district court lacked authority to order repayment (the appellate mandate did not require it), vacated the repayment order and the dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court could order Barnett to repay funds he received while the prior appeal was pending	Barnett argued the payments were made pursuant to a new settlement with appellees and thus not subject to repayment	Appellees argued the payments were compulsory satisfaction of the now-vacated judgment and must be returned to restore pre-offer status	Court held the appellate mandate did not require repayment; district court lacked authority to order repayment on this record
Whether dismissal of Barnett’s case for failure to repay was appropriate sanction	Barnett argued dismissal was improper because repayment order was unauthorized	Appellees argued nonpayment justified dismissal as sanction for noncompliance	Court held dismissal was an abuse of discretion because it rested on an unauthorized repayment order; dismissal vacated

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Tanderup, 305 Neb. 493, 941 N.W.2d 145 (2020) (construction of an appellate mandate is a question of law)
Holste v. Burlington Northern RR. Co., 256 Neb. 713, 592 N.W.2d 894 (1999) (standard of review for sanctions is abuse of discretion)
State v. Payne, 298 Neb. 373, 904 N.W.2d 275 (2017) (district court must follow appellate mandate and cannot modify it)
Barnett v. Happy Cab Co., 28 Neb. App. 438, 945 N.W.2d 200 (2020) (Court of Appeals vacated judgments entered on the offer to confess judgment for lack of effective acceptance)
Washa v. Miller, 249 Neb. 941, 546 N.W.2d 813 (1996) (recognizes unjust enrichment as a cause of action)