TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Tanderup
941 N.W.2d 145
Neb.2020Background:
- TransCanada filed multiple condemnation actions; condemnees in Antelope County sought attorney fees under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-726.
- The Antelope County Court awarded fees based on affidavits submitted by condemnees; TransCanada objected as hearsay.
- The Antelope County District Court reversed, ruling the affidavits inadmissible and remanding for a "rehearing on the merits." TransCanada did not appeal those remand orders.
- The county court, after a continuance pending the Nicholas Family appeals, declined to hold a new evidentiary hearing, reasoning the prior affidavits were identical to those rejected in Nicholas Family and thus a rehearing was pointless.
- The district court (on plain-error review because no statement of errors was filed) found the county court plainly erred by failing to hold the evidentiary hearing and ordered the county court to conduct one; TransCanada appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (TransCanada) | Defendant's Argument (Condemnees / District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county court plainly erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on remand | No plain error; county court properly declined rehearing because record evidence was identical/insufficient | County court ignored a specific mandate to rehear; failing to hold a hearing was plain error | Court held plain error; county court must hold an evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the district court’s remand was a general remand or a specific mandate | Remand was general; Bohmont exception allows entry of judgment without new hearing when only one result possible | Remand was specific: it ordered a "rehearing on the merits," so the county court had to comply | Court held the remand was specific and mandatory (not a general remand) |
| Whether the county court could limit evidence on remand to the original affidavits | Court could limit to the record (Jeffres) or treat facts as undisputed (deNourie/Bohmont) | Mandate required a new evidentiary hearing; limiting evidence below the scope of the mandate was improper | Court held county court erred in limiting evidence; it must consider all relevant evidence at the new hearing |
| Whether the original affidavits could support attorney fees after appellate rulings | Affidavits were admissible and could suffice | District court ruled affidavits inadmissible hearsay; that ruling became law of the case | Court recognized Nicholas Family allows affidavits in some circumstances but here the district court’s inadmissibility rulings stood, leaving no evidence on remand and requiring a new hearing |
| Whether the parties’ continuance stipulation changed the county court’s duty to follow the mandate | Stipulation justified awaiting related appeals and altered timing/scope | Stipulation did not waive or alter the county court’s duty to follow the district court’s specific mandate | Court held the continuance did not relieve the county court of its obligation to hold the evidentiary hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Nicholas Family, 299 Neb. 276 (addresses admissibility and sufficiency of affidavits for attorney-fee awards)
- deNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost, 295 Neb. 912 (discusses scope of general remand and trial-court discretion on remand)
- State v. Henk, 299 Neb. 586 (mandate controls scope of evidence on remand; lower court cannot expand beyond remand)
- Bohmont v. Moore, 141 Neb. 91 (exception allowing entry of judgment on remand when undisputed facts permit only one result)
- Jeffres v. Countryside Homes, 220 Neb. 26 (trial court may decide post-remand on evidence already in the record or take additional evidence)
- Jurgensen v. Ainscow, 160 Neb. 208 (lower court must obey appellate mandate; finality and authority of appellate orders)
- Houser v. American Paving Asphalt, 299 Neb. 1 (plain-error review standard when no statement of errors filed)