Heckman v. Marchio
296 Neb. 458
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Bryan Heckman filed suit against Regina Marchio to establish paternity, custody, and support for a minor child.
- Heckman moved to disqualify Marchio’s privately retained counsel; the district court granted the motion and denied Marchio’s motion for reconsideration.
- Marchio filed an immediate appeal from the disqualification order; the Nebraska Supreme Court docketed the case.
- Marchio relied on Richardson v. Griffiths, a 1997 Nebraska decision that allowed interlocutory appeals from attorney-disqualification orders as an exception to the final-order requirement.
- The Supreme Court reconsidered the statutory and constitutional basis for interlocutory appeals, focusing on Neb. Const. art. V § 2, separation of powers, and the Legislature’s exclusive role in defining appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an order disqualifying counsel is immediately appealable | Marchio: Richardson permits interlocutory appeal of disqualification orders | Heckman: No statutory authorization; appeal rights are purely statutory | The court held such appeals are not authorized absent statute and dismissed the appeal |
| Validity of the Richardson exception to the final-order rule | Marchio: Richardson established an exception allowing interlocutory review | Heckman: Richardson lacked statutory basis and improperly expanded judicial power | The court overruled Richardson to the extent it authorized interlocutory appeals without statutory authorization |
| Separation of powers — may court create interlocutory-appeal exceptions | Marchio: (implicit) judicially created exceptions serve practical interests | Heckman: Only Legislature may confer appellate jurisdiction; courts cannot legislate | The court held adopting the Richardson exception was judicial legislation inconsistent with the Constitution |
| Applicability of collateral-order doctrine / federal precedent | Marchio cited collateral-order concepts to justify review | Heckman noted U.S. Supreme Court rejected interlocutory appeals of disqualification orders under collateral-order doctrine | The court relied on federal precedent and held effective review after final judgment is possible; interlocutory appeal not warranted absent statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Griffiths, 251 Neb. 825 (1997) (Nebraska decision that previously allowed interlocutory appeals from disqualification orders)
- Maddocks v. Ricker, 403 Mass. 592 (1988) (Massachusetts case adopting interlocutory review for disqualification orders)
- Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Koller, 472 U.S. 424 (1985) (U.S. Supreme Court holding disqualification orders in civil cases are not reviewable under the federal collateral-order doctrine)
- Huskey v. Huskey, 289 Neb. 439 (2014) (statement that Nebraska appellate jurisdiction must be provided by statute)
- State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190 (1998) (discussion rejecting judicial legislation and emphasizing statutory basis for criminal elements)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (factors relevant to stare decisis and precedent evaluation)