Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458

Bryan R. Heckman sued Regina M. Marchio seeking paternity, custody, and support for a minor child.
Heckman moved to disqualify Marchio’s privately retained counsel; the district court granted the disqualification and denied Marchio’s motion for reconsideration.
Marchio filed an immediate (interlocutory) appeal from the disqualification order to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
The Nebraska Supreme Court had previously in Richardson v. Griffiths adopted an exception permitting appeals from certain nonfinal disqualification orders.
The court in this case reexamined whether such interlocutory appeals are authorized by statute or the Nebraska Constitution and whether Richardson was correct to create that exception.
The Court concluded the appeal was not statutorily authorized and moved to reconsider and overrule Richardson to the extent it allowed interlocutory appeals without statutory support.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an order disqualifying counsel is immediately appealable	Marchio argued Richardson v. Griffiths permits interlocutory appeals from disqualification orders	Heckman argued appellate jurisdiction requires statutory authorization and the order is nonfinal	Not appealable; appeal dismissed for lack of statutory authority
Validity of the Richardson exception to final-order requirement	Marchio relied on Richardson to justify interlocutory review	Heckman contended Richardson had no statutory basis and conflicted with Nebraska law	Richardson overruled to the extent it authorized interlocutory appeals without statute
Whether courts may create exceptions to statutory appellate jurisdiction	Marchio urged practical/policy reasons for interlocutory review	Heckman maintained courts cannot expand jurisdiction reserved to the Legislature	Court held judges may not arrogate legislative authority; appellate jurisdiction is purely statutory
Whether effective review after final judgment can protect rights affected by counsel disqualification	Marchio argued interlocutory review necessary to protect client interests	Heckman cited U.S. Supreme Court precedent that post-judgment review can be effective	Court agreed effective review post-judgment is possible; interlocutory exception unnecessary absent legislative action

Richardson v. Griffiths, 251 Neb. 825 (Neb. 1997) (previously allowed interlocutory appeals from counsel-disqualification orders)
Maddocks v. Ricker, 403 Mass. 592 (Mass. 1988) (articulated rule permitting interlocutory review of disqualification orders)
Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1985) (held orders disqualifying counsel in civil cases do not fall within the federal collateral-order doctrine)
Huskey v. Huskey, 289 Neb. 439 (Neb. 2014) (reiterated that appellate jurisdiction in Nebraska is granted only by statute)
State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190 (Neb. 1998) (discussed limits on judicial legislation and separation-of-powers concerns)