Hara v. Reichert
843 N.W.2d 812
| Neb. | 2014Background
- Hara filed a declaratory judgment claiming the $4,000 from Reichert was a gift, not a loan.
- Reichert originally sued Hara in small claims court for $4,000, claiming it was a loan; small claims court ruled for Reichert (loan).
- Hara appealed the small claims judgment, but subsequently dismissed her appeal for financial reasons.
- Reichert moved to dismiss Hara’s declaratory judgment action in Scotts Bluff County Court; district court later dismissed after applying preclusion.
- The Scotts Bluff district court noted Henriksen v. Gleason suggested issue preclusion does not apply to small claims judgments, due to procedural differences.
- Nebraska Supreme Court held claim preclusion applies to small claims judgments, but issue preclusion does not; district court’s dismissal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does claim preclusion bar Hara’s suit? | Hara | Reichert | Yes; claim preclusion applies |
| Does issue preclusion bar Hara’s suit? | Hara | Reichert | No; issue preclusion does not apply to small claims judgments |
Key Cases Cited
- Henriksen v. Gleason, 263 Neb. 840 (2002) (issue preclusion not applied to small claims judgments)
- Eicher v. Mid-America Fin. Invest. Corp., 270 Neb. 370 (2005) (treats relevance of preclusion doctrines)
- In re Interest of S.C., 283 Neb. 294 (2012) (context for preclusion analysis)
- Flobert Industries v. Stuhr, 216 Neb. 389 (1984) (preclusion discussion reference)
- Peterson v. The Nebraska Nat. Gas Co., 204 Neb. 136 (1979) (restatement of preclusion principles)
- DeCosta Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Kirkland, 210 Neb. 815 (1982) (precedent on preclusion doctrine)
- Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs. v. Weekley, 274 Neb. 516 (2007) (context on prosecutorial/preclusion principles)