Decisions regarding discovery are directed to the discretion of the trial court, and will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Wynne v. Menard, Inc., 299 Neb. 710, 910 N.W.2d 96 (2018). V. ANALYSIS
(a) General Principles Regarding Summary JudgmentA party moving for summary judgment has the burden to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and must produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wynne v. Menard, Inc., 299 Neb. 710, 910 N.W.2d 96 (2018). If the movant meets this burden, then the nonmovant must show the existence of a material issue of fact that prevents judgment as a matter of law.
Id. at 9. A party moving for summary judgment has the burden to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and must produce sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Wynne v. Menard, Inc., 299 Neb. 710, 910 N.W.2d 96 (2018). If the movant meets this burden, then the nonmovant must show the existence of a material issue of fact that prevents judgment as a matter of law.
On appellate review, the factual findings made by the trial judge of the Workers' Compensation Court have the effect of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. Wynne v. Menard, Inc., 299 Neb. 710, 910 N.W.2d 96 (2018). When testing the sufficiency of the evidence to support findings of fact made by the Workers' Compensation Court trial judge, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the successful party and the successful party will have the benefit of every inference reasonably deducible from the evidence.
Bogardi v. Bogardi , 249 Neb. 154, 542 N.W.2d 417 (1996).Wynne v. Menard, Inc. , 299 Neb. 710, 910 N.W.2d 96 (2018) ; Healy v. Langdon , 245 Neb. 1, 511 N.W.2d 498 (1994) ; Schlines v. Ekberg , 172 Neb. 510, 110 N.W.2d 49 (1961).Blankenship v. Omaha P. P. Dist. , 195 Neb. 170, 237 N.W.2d 86 (1976).
Bogardi v. Bogardi, 249 Neb. 154, 542 N.W.2d 417 (1996).Wynne v. Menard, Inc., 299 Neb. 710, 910 N.W.2d 96 (2018); Healy v. Langdon, 245 Neb. 1, 511 N.W.2d 498 (1994); Schlines v. Ekberg, 172 Neb. 510, 110 N.W.2d 49 (1961).Blankenship v. Omaha P. P. Dist, 195 Neb. 170, 237 N.W.2d 86 (1976).
McKinney v. Okoye , 287 Neb. 261, 842 N.W.2d 581 (2014).Wynne v. Menard, Inc. , 299 Neb. 710, 910 N.W.2d 96 (2018).Tedd Bish Farm v. Southwest Fencing Servs. , 291 Neb. 527, 867 N.W.2d 265 (2015).
It does not resolve the factual issues. Wynne v. Menard, Inc. , 299 Neb. 710, 910 N.W.2d 96 (2018). Where reasonable minds could draw different conclusions from the facts presented, there is a triable issue of material fact.
In reviewing a judgment awarded in a bench trial of a law action, an appellate court does not reweigh evidence, but considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the successful party and resolves evidentiary conflicts in favor of the successful party, who is entitled to every reasonable inference deducible from the evidence. See Wynne v. Menard, Inc. , 299 Neb. 710, 910 N.W.2d 96 (2018). See, also, Webb v. American Employers Group , 268 Neb. 473, 684 N.W.2d 33 (2004).
, 299 Neb. 710, 910 N.W.2d 96 (2018).