E.D. v. Bellevue Pub. Sch. Dist.
299 Neb. 621
Neb.2018Background
- Plaintiff E.D. (a former student) sued Bellevue Public School District (BPS) and teacher Bradley Nord alleging a nearly yearlong nonconsensual sexual relationship that occurred primarily on school premises and asserting negligence claims under the PSTCA.
- BPS and Nord moved to dismiss asserting sovereign immunity under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), relying on the intentional-tort exception.
- The district court denied both motions to dismiss; Nord’s motion for reconsideration was also denied.
- BPS appealed and Nord cross-appealed from the denial of sovereign-immunity defenses.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, then reinstated the appeal on reconsideration; the Nebraska Supreme Court transferred the case to its docket.
- The Supreme Court questioned its jurisdiction, reviewed statutory limits on appellate jurisdiction, and concluded the order was nonfinal and not appealable under Nebraska law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the interlocutory denial of sovereign immunity | E.D.: Court lacks statutory authority for the appeal; collateral order doctrine does not apply | BPS: Collateral order doctrine permits immediate appeal from denial of sovereign immunity; Court of Appeals' reinstatement established law of the case | The appeal must be dismissed: interlocutory denial is nonfinal and collateral order doctrine cannot be used to create appellate jurisdiction absent statutory authorization |
| Whether denying sovereign immunity on the pleadings is effectively unreviewable on appeal after final judgment (i.e., fits collateral order factors) | E.D.: Denial does not create jurisdiction; statutory final-order definitions control | BPS: Denial conclusively resolves an important issue separate from the merits and is effectively unreviewable later | Court rejected collateral-order application here, overruling prior Nebraska precedent that allowed such interlocutory appeals |
| Whether prior Nebraska cases (StoreVisions, Richardson) permit interlocutory appeals for sovereign-immunity denials | E.D.: Prior cases were wrongly decided or inapplicable | BPS: Prior Nebraska precedent supports collateral-order review of sovereign-immunity denials | Court overruled StoreVisions (to the extent it allowed interlocutory appeals absent statutory authorization) and disavowed Richardson-based exceptions |
| Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine bars the Supreme Court from reconsidering Court of Appeals reinstatement | E.D.: Supreme Court not precluded from addressing jurisdiction | BPS: Reinstatement binds as law of the case | Court held law-of-the-case does not prevent the Supreme Court from deciding jurisdiction; reinstatement was not a jurisdictional ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- StoreVisions v. Omaha Tribe of Neb., 281 Neb. 238 (Neb. 2011) (previously allowed interlocutory appeals from denial of sovereign immunity; overruled here to the extent it authorized appeals absent statutory authorization)
- Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458 (Neb. 2017) (overruled Richardson-based collateral-order exceptions; emphasized appellate jurisdiction is purely statutory)
- Richardson v. Griffiths, 251 Neb. 825 (Neb. 1997) (earlier Nebraska decision applying collateral order doctrine to permit interlocutory appeals; disavowed by Heckman)
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (U.S. 1993) (U.S. Supreme Court recognition of the collateral order doctrine)
- Williams v. Baird, 273 Neb. 977 (Neb. 2007) (relied on collateral-order jurisprudence in prior Nebraska decisions)
- Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. 81 (Neb. 2006) (cited in Nebraska’s prior application of collateral-order doctrine)