Because the ordinance Yah was charged with violating is not in the record, we will assume that the material allegations contained in the long-form complaint against Yah reflect the substantive content of the ordinance. The complaint alleged Yah "did purposely or knowingly do any act, refuse to do any act, or commit any act of omission with the intent to obstruct or interfere with any law enforcement officer . . . performing an official duty." See, e.g., Harris v. O'Connor, 287 Neb. 182, 842 N.W.2d 50 (2014); State v. Hill, 254 Neb. 460, 577 N.W.2d 259 (1998); Vrana Paving Co. v. City of Omaha, 220 Neb. 269, 369 N.W.2d 613 (1985); City of Omaha Human Relations Dept. v. City Wide Rock & Exc. Co., 201 Neb. 405, 268 N.W.2d 98 (1978); State v. Hohensee, 164 Neb. 476, 82 N.W.2d 554 (1957); Steiner v. State, 78 Neb. 147, 110 N.W. 723 (1907).
When a plaintiff asserts attorney malpractice in a civil case, the plaintiff must show that he or she would have been successful in the underlying action but for the attorney's negligence.Harris v. O'Connor, 287 Neb. 182, 842 N.W.2d 50 (2014).Id.
attorney's neglect of a reasonable duty, and (3) the attorney's negligence was a proximate cause of the client's loss. So a client cannot recover in a legal malpractice case when the client's own conduct caused the injury. As relevant here, courts have held that a client cannot recover for malpractice in the following circumstances: (1) when the client failed to follow the attorney's reasonable advice ; (2) when the client directed the attorney's actions in a matter and the attorney acted in accordance with the client's instruction ; and (3) when the client misrepresented material facts upon which the attorney relied. See Harris v. O'Connor, 287 Neb. 182, 842 N.W.2d 50 (2014). See, generally, Annot., 10 A.L.R.5th 828 (1993).
An appellate court independently reviews questions of law decided by a lower court.Harris v. O'Connor, 287 Neb. 182, 842 N.W.2d 50 (2014).Pinnacle Enters. v. City of Papillion, 286 Neb. 322, 836 N.W.2d 588 (2013).
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings and admissible evidence offered at the hearing show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Harris v. O'Connor, 287 Neb. 182, 842 N.W.2d 50 (2014). In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was granted, and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.
Doe assigns, consolidated and restated, that the district court erred in (1) granting summary judgment against him, (2) denying portions of his motions to compel, and (3) failing to sua sponte schedule a hearing relating to the defendants' alleged failure to comply with motions to compel that were granted. See Harris v. O'Connor, 287 Neb. 182, 842 N.W.2d 50 (2014). IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings and admissible evidence offered at the hearing show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.Harris v. O'Connor, 287 Neb. 182, 842 N.W.2d 50 (2014).Statutory interpretation presents a question of law, for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the determination made by the court below.
When a plaintiff asserts attorney malpractice in a civil case, the plaintiff must show that he or she would have been successful in the underlying action but for the attorney's negligence. Harris v. O'Connor, 287 Neb. 182, 842 N.W.2d 50 (2014). Bennett's underlying medical malpractice claim suffers from the same lack of expert testimony as her legal malpractice claim.
Goebel does make a proper statement of law. That is, summary judgment is proper if the pleadings and admissible evidence offered at the hearing show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Harris v. O'Connor, 287 Neb. 182, 842 N.W.2d 50 (2014). That said, the district court granted summary judgment here because it found expert witness testimony was required to establish causation in light of Arps' challenge of that issue, and that Goebel failed to provide contradictory expert testimony on that issue.
The Nortons claim that the street improvement projects resulted in increased flooding as a result of the surface water runoffs direction flow being altered, increasing the flow along the paved streets with concrete curbs to the concrete flume abutting the Norton Property, and increasing the surface water runoff because of the placement of an inadequate culvert downstream. Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings and admissible evidence offered at the hearing show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Harris v. O'Connor, 287 Neb. 182, 842 N.W.2d 50 (2014). Summary judgment proceedings do not resolve factual issues, but, instead, determine whether there is a material issue of fact in dispute.