Pearce v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 945 N.W.2d 516

Kevin Pearce, an insurance agent, sued for return of property after his employment and office access were terminated; Mutual of Omaha and Continuum counterclaimed for breach and sought injunctive relief.
On October 16, 2018, the district court entered an order granting summary judgment against the Pearces but did not explicitly address appellees’ counterclaim.
Both parties filed timely motions to alter or amend (Mutual on Oct 24; Pearces on Oct 26); the district court’s Judges Notes contain a November 30, 2018 docket entry: Mutual’s motion sustained, Pearces’ motion denied.
A December 13, 2018 signed order memorialized only Mutual’s successful motion, clarifying the Oct 16 order was not intended as a final judgment.
A final judgment and permanent injunction were entered May 23, 2019. The Pearces filed multiple appeals: June 21, 2019 (dismissed for inadequate record), Aug 9, 2019 (untimely), and Sept 9, 2019 (filed after a later signed order that was vacated by the trial court).
The Court of Appeals concluded the Nov 30 Judges Notes constituted a written order disposing of the Pearces’ terminating motion, the Pearces failed to include that order in their appellate record, and subsequent appeals were untimely; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Pearce's Argument	Mutual's Argument	Held
Whether the Nov 30, 2018 docket/Judges Notes constituted an order disposing of the Pearces’ motion to alter or amend	Judges Notes are not a separately filed, file‑stamped order, so no ruling was entered	The written docket entry denying Pearces’ motion is an order under governing rules/statute	The Nov 30 docket entry was an order disposing of the Pearces’ motion (an interlocutory order, not a final judgment)
Whether the appeals were timely and whether the appellate court had jurisdiction	First appeal timely from May 23 final judgment; later filings tried to cure record defects and preserve appeal	Pearces’ failure to include the Nov 30 entry deprived the appellate court of jurisdiction; later notices were beyond the 30‑day window	First appeal would have been timely if the Nov 30 order had been in the record; because it was not, earlier appeals were dismissed and subsequent appeals were untimely; jurisdiction lacking
Whether the district court’s Sept 9, 2019 signed/file‑stamped order could cure timeliness and revive the appeal	The Sept 9 order cured absence of an earlier formal order and made the Sept notice timely	The Sept 9 order was duplicative/improper and cannot resuscitate an otherwise untimely appeal	The Sept 9 order was vacated as duplicative; it did not revive appellate jurisdiction; appeal dismissed

E.D. v. Bellevue Pub. Sch. Dist., 299 Neb. 621 (Neb. 2018) (distinguishes judgments from other written orders)
City of Ashland v. Ashland Salvage, 271 Neb. 362 (Neb. 2006) (file‑stamped journal entry can be a final judgment)
Donscheski v. Donscheski, 17 Neb. App. 807 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009) (unsigned/unfiled journal entries may be interlocutory and not appealable)
Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 296 Neb. 632 (Neb. 2017) (appellant bears burden to supply record establishing appellate jurisdiction)