E.D. v. Bellevue Pub. Sch. Dist., 909 N.W.2d 652

Background

E.D., a student over the age of consent, sued Bellevue Public School District (BPS) and teacher Bradley Nord alleging a yearlong nonconsensual sexual relationship that primarily occurred on BPS premises.
E.D. asserted negligence claims against BPS for failing to provide a safe environment and to adopt reasonable policies for an extracurricular teacher's aide program that paired E.D. and Nord.
BPS and Nord moved to dismiss based on sovereign immunity under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA); the trial court denied both motions and denied Nord’s motion for reconsideration.
BPS appealed and Nord cross-appealed from the trial court’s orders denying immunity. The Nebraska Court of Appeals initially dismissed BPS’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, then reinstated it on reconsideration; the Nebraska Supreme Court later took the case.
The sole legal question addressed by the Nebraska Supreme Court was whether it had statutory jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals from denials of sovereign immunity, i.e., whether the collateral order doctrine authorized review of the nonfinal orders.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Nebraska Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from a denial of sovereign immunity under the PSTCA	E.D.: The appeal is not statutorily authorized; the collateral order doctrine does not apply	BPS: Collateral order doctrine permits immediate appeal of denial of sovereign immunity; reinstatement by Court of Appeals equals law of the case	Court: No statutory authority; collateral order doctrine cannot be used to circumvent statutory limits on appellate jurisdiction; appeal dismissed
Whether law-of-the-case or prior Court of Appeals reinstatement precludes the Supreme Court from reexamining jurisdiction	E.D.: Jurisdiction may be raised anytime; law-of-the-case does not bind this Court	BPS: Court of Appeals’ reinstatement should preclude relitigation of jurisdiction	Court: Law-of-the-case does not prevent the Supreme Court from addressing jurisdiction; lack of jurisdiction can be raised sua sponte
Whether prior Nebraska authority (StoreVisions, etc.) permits collateral-order interlocutory appeals denying sovereign immunity	E.D.: Prior cases misapplied doctrine given statutory framework	BPS: StoreVisions and related cases allow such appeals following federal precedent	Court: Overrules StoreVisions to the extent it authorized interlocutory appeals without statutory authorization
Whether the collateral order doctrine’s factors are satisfied for denial of sovereign immunity under Nebraska statutes	E.D.: Doctrine inapplicable because Nebraska statutes define final orders and exclude such interlocutory appeals	BPS: Denial of immunity is separable, conclusive, and effectively unreviewable after final judgment	Court: Even if doctrine’s factors could fit, Nebraska appellate jurisdiction is purely statutory and cannot be expanded by judicially created exceptions

Key Cases Cited

Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458 (2017) (overruled Richardson exception; courts may not create appellate jurisdiction beyond statutory authorization)
StoreVisions v. Omaha Tribe of Neb., 281 Neb. 238 (2011) (applied collateral order doctrine to deny-of-immunity appeals)
Richardson v. Griffiths, 251 Neb. 825 (1997) (earlier adoption of collateral-order-based exception, later overruled)
Williams v. Baird, 273 Neb. 977 (2007) (relied on Richardson/StoreVisions regarding interlocutory review of immunity issues)
Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. 81 (2006) (applied collateral order reasoning to nonfinal orders)
Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (1993) (U.S. Supreme Court recognition of the collateral order doctrine)
Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (foundational discussion of collateral-order principles)
Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424 (1985) (U.S. Supreme Court precedent on appealability and collateral order doctrine)