S-22-0688 Sanitary Improvement District No. 596 (Appellee) v. THG Development, LLC (Appellant)
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge Tressa M. Alioth
Attorneys: Jason M. Bruno (Sherrets Bruno & Vogt LLC for Appellant) and Gregory C. Scaglione (Koley Jessen P.C., L.L.O. for Appellee).
Civil: Condemnation Proceedings
Proceedings below: A jury awarded Appellant compensation for the value of its condemned property and for the decline in value to the remainder of its property. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) The District Court erred in allowing the mention of, and instructing the jury, regarding “special benefits”; A) The District Court lacked jurisdiction over the issue because SID 596 never appealed the Board of Appraisers’ determination that THG Received $0 in “Special Benefits”; B) There was no basis for a claim of “Special Benefits” as defined under Nebraska law; 2) The District Court erroneously permitted, and refused to strike, the testimony of Cheri Rockwell; 3) The District Court erroneously permitted Andrew Snyder to offer valuation testimony; 4) The District Court should have granted a new trial because SID 596 improperly used excluded evidence during closing to represent to the jury that THG was “concealing” evidence; and 5) The District Court erred in denying THG’s Motion for New Trial.
S-23-0134 Sanitary Improvement District No. 596 (Appellants) v. THG Development, LLC (Appellee)
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge Tressa M. Alioth
Attorneys: Gregory C. Scaglione and Michele E. Young (Koley Jessen P.C., L.L.O. for Appellants) and Jason M. Bruno (Sherrets Bruno & Vogt LLC for Appellee).
Civil: Special Assessment
Proceedings below: Appellant filed a complaint against Appellee seeking a special assessment award pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 31-752, and the trial court granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered this case to be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant makes the following assignments of error: 1) The district court erred in determining that § 31-752 was ambiguous and concluding that § 31-752 does not authorize SID 596 to seek to have a district court order an owner of property outside of SID 596’s boundaries to pay for special benefits conferred by the public improvements installed and paid for by SID 596. The district court thus erred in granting THG’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing SID 596’s Complaint; and 2) Even if § 31-752 is ambiguous, the district court erred in concluding that § 31-752 does not authorize SID 596 to seek to have a district court order an owner of property outside of SID 596’s boundaries to pay for special benefits conferred by the public improvements installed and paid for by SID 596. The district court thus erred in granting THG’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing SID 596’s Complaint.
Appellee makes the following assignment of error on cross-appeal: 1) The district court erred in denying THG’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees.