Heckman v. Marchio
296 Neb. 458
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Heckman filed a paternity/custody/support action against Marchio; Marchio’s privately retained attorney was later disqualified by the district court.
- The district court granted Heckman’s motion to disqualify; Marchio’s motion to reconsider was denied.
- Marchio filed a purported interlocutory appeal from the disqualification order and the case was moved to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court previously (in Richardson v. Griffiths) allowed appeals from certain nonfinal disqualification orders by adopting a Massachusetts rule permitting interlocutory review when interests could not be protected by post-judgment review.
- The panel in this case concluded the Richardson line lacked statutory authorization and conflicted with Nebraska’s constitutional allocation of appellate jurisdiction to the Legislature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Heckman) | Defendant's Argument (Marchio) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order disqualifying counsel is immediately appealable | Order is appealable under Richardson exception/collateral-order-like rule | Interlocutory appeal not authorized; must await final judgment | Not appealable; appeal dismissed |
| Whether Richardson v. Griffiths created a valid exception to final-order statute | Richardson permits interlocutory review of disqualification orders | Richardson lacks statutory basis and usurps legislative authority | Richardson (and progeny to extent they allowed such appeals) overruled |
| Whether courts may expand appellate jurisdiction absent legislative authorization | Judicially creating exceptions serves efficiency and protects rights | Appellate jurisdiction is purely statutory; courts cannot add exceptions | Courts may not expand jurisdiction; Legislature must authorize any exception |
| Whether effective post-judgment review can protect disqualified party’s interests | Immediate review necessary to protect client’s rights | Post-judgment review can be effective (per U.S. Sup. Ct.) | Effective review post-judgment is possible; interlocutory appeal unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Griffiths, 251 Neb. 825 (1997) (Nebraska decision creating interlocutory-appeal rule for disqualification orders)
- Maddocks v. Ricker, 403 Mass. 592 (Mass. 1988) (Massachusetts decision quoted in Richardson to justify interlocutory review)
- Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1985) (U.S. Supreme Court held disqualification orders do not qualify for federal collateral-order interlocutory appeals)
- Huskey v. Huskey, 289 Neb. 439 (2014) (reiterating that Nebraska appellate jurisdiction must be provided by statute)