Essink v. City of Gretna

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Essink v. City of Gretna

Case Number
A-16-0682
Court Number
Sarpy
Call Date
June 7, 2017
Case Time
1:00 PM
Case Summary

A-16-0682, Renee Essink, Brandon Henry, Amanda Henry, Michael Foged, and Catherine Howard v. City of Gretna, a Municipal Corporation (Appellant)

Sarpy County, District Court Judge Paul D. Merritt

Attorney for Appellant:  Thomas J. Culhane, Patrick R. Guinan (Erickson|Sederstrom, P.C.)

Attorney for Appellee:  Melanie J. Whittamore-Mantzios (Wolfe, Snowden, Hurd, Luers & Ahl, LLP)

Civil Action:  inverse condemnation; negligence under Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA)

Action Taken by Trial Court:  Renee Essink, Brandon Henry, Amanda Henry, Michael Foged, and Catherine Howard (collectively the appellees) filed an amended complaint against the City of Gretna alleging claims of inverse condemnation and negligence under the PSTCA. The trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Essink’s and the Henry’s negligence claims, but not with respect to Foged and Howard’s negligence claim. After trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellees on their inverse condemnation claim. In a subsequent bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Foged and Howard on their negligence claim.

Assignments of Error on Appeal:  Did the district court err in failing to direct a verdict in the City’s favor on the inverse condemnation claims? Did the district court err in denying the City’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the inverse condemnation claims? Did the district court err in submitting the takings question to the jury? Did the district court improperly instruct the jury on the inverse condemnation claims? Did the district court err in determining that Foged and Howard filed a “claim” under the PSTCA? Did the district court err in determining Foged and Howard complied with the PSTCA with respect to filing a claim? Did the district court err in determining that the City was negligent in causing the backups? Did the district court err in determining the backups were proximately caused by the City’s negligence?

Case Location
Lincoln
Court Type
District Court
Schedule Code
A2
Panel Text
Moore, Chief Judge, Pirtle, and Bishop, Judges