Young v. Govier & Milone, L.P.

34 Citing cases

  1. Jamie N. ex rel. Madison N. v. Kenneth M.

    23 Neb. App. 1 (Neb. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    We begin by examining general res judicata principles and whether the dismissal in the paternity action filed by the State was actually an adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars the relitigation of a matter that has been directly addressed or necessarily included in a former adjudication if (1) the former judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the former judgment was a final judgment, (3) the former judgment was on the merits, and (4) the same parties or their privies were involved in both actions. Young v. Govier & Milone, 286 Neb. 224, 835 N.W.2d 684 (2013). There is no question that the same parties and privies were involved in the current action and the previous two actions filed in Sarpy County, by the State on behalf of Madison against Jamie and Eric in 2012 and by Jamie on behalf of Madison against Eric in March 2013.

  2. Junker v. Carlson

    No. A-12-650 (Neb. Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2013)

    And the question before us is not whether the Appellants will ultimately prevail on their claim against SLS, but, rather, whether a genuine issue of material fact exists to prevent entry of summary judgment in favor of SLS. Summary judgment proceedings do not resolve factual issues, but instead determine whether there is a material issue of fact in dispute. Young v. Govier & Milone, 286 Neb. 224, 835 N.W.2d 684 (2013). The record shows that SLS had previously purchased property from Wells.

  3. Gilbert v. Johnson

    4:22-CV-3248 (D. Neb. Feb. 9, 2024)

    To prevail on a claim for legal malpractice, a plaintiff must prove (1) the attorney's employment, (2) the attorney's neglect of a reasonable duty, and (3) that the neglect resulted in and was the proximate cause of loss to the plaintiff. Kozal v. Snyder, 978 N.W.2d 174, 179 (Neb. 2022) (citing Young v. Govier & Milone, L.P., 835 N.W.2d 684 (Neb. 2013)). When a plaintiff asserts attorney malpractice at the trial level in a civil case

  4. Myers v. Stehlik

    4:22-CV-3039 (D. Neb. May. 2, 2024)

    And a plaintiff in a malpractice action may recover for excessive fees charged by an attorney. See Young v. Govier & Milone, L.P., 835 N.W.2d 684, 692 (Neb. 2013).

  5. Gilbert v. Johnson

    4:22-CV-3248 (D. Neb. Mar. 12, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Gilbert has alleged that his attorney committed legal malpractice by intentionally neglecting a reasonable duty, both by knowingly giving Gilbert false advice and failing to pursue Gilbert's requests for custody of his child. See filing 1-2 at 7; Kozal v. Snyder, 978 N.W.2d 174, 179 (Neb. 2022) (citing Young v. Govier & Milone, L.P., 835 N.W.2d 684 (Neb. 2013)). Gilbert's relationship with Johnson involved a "peculiarly personal subject matter."

  6. Eletech, Inc. v. Jones (In re Jones)

    648 B.R. 371 (Bankr. D. Neb. 2022)   Cited 1 times

    The Nebraska Supreme Court has said that "summary judgments, judgments on a directed verdict, judgments after trial, default judgments, and consent judgments are all generally considered to be on the merits for purposes of res judicata." Young v. Govier & Milone, L.P. , 286 Neb. 224, 835 N.W.2d 684, 696 (2013) (citing DeVaux v. DeVaux , 245 Neb. 611, 514 N.W.2d 640, 646 (1994) (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Alisha C. v. Jeremy C. , 283 Neb. 340, 808 N.W.2d 875, 882 (2012) )). DISCUSSION

  7. Eletech, Inc. v. Jones (In re Jones)

    BK 21-80876-TLS (Bankr. D. Neb. Dec. 7, 2022)

    The Nebraska Supreme Court has said that "summary judgments, judgments on a directed verdict, judgments after trial, default judgments, and consent judgments are all generally considered to be on the merits for purposes of res judicata." Young v. Govier & Milone, L.P., 835 N.W.2d 684, 696 (Neb. 2013) (citing DeVaux v. DeVaux, 514 N.W.2d 640, 646 (Neb. 1994) (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Alisha C. v. Jeremy C., 808 N.W.2d 875, 882 (Neb. 2012))).

  8. Girard v. Parkhurst (In re Parkhurst)

    No. BK21-41284 (Bankr. D. Neb. Sep. 9, 2022)

    "[I]t is generally held that collateral estoppel does not apply even after a judgment by default is entered because no issue of fact or law was actually litigated." Consteel Erectors, Inc. v. Scharpf's Constr., Inc., No. 4:08CV3038, 2008 WL 4568079, at *4, n.9 (D. Neb. Oct. 10, 2008) (citing Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 414 (2000) and Restatement (Second) of Judgments ยง 27, p. 250 (1982)); see also Young v. Govier & Milone, L.P., 835 N.W.2d 684, 696 (Neb. 2013); Jordan v. LSF8 Master Participation Tr., 915 N.W.2d 399, 415 (Neb. 2018) ("The party relying on issue preclusion in a present proceeding has the burden to show that a particular issue was involved and necessarily determined in a prior proceeding."). As explained by the Nebraska Supreme Court, issue preclusion can have a broader effect than claim preclusion:

  9. Bunger v. Smith (In re Smith)

    CASE NO. BK19-41985-TLS (Bankr. D. Neb. Sep. 11, 2020)

    The Nebraska Supreme Court has said that "summary judgments, judgments on a directed verdict, judgments after trial, default judgments, and consent judgments are all generally considered to be on the merits for purposes of res judicata." Young v. Govier & Milone, L.P., 835 N.W.2d 684, 696 (Neb. 2013) (citing DeVaux v. DeVaux, 514 N.W.2d 640, 646 (Neb. 1994) (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Alisha C. v. Jeremy C., 808 N.W.2d 875, 882 (Neb. 2012))). Brandon now claims Caiti obtained the property judgment through fraud and false statements in the divorce proceeding.

  10. DN Enter. v. Navarro (In re Navarro)

    CASE NO. BK19-81567-TLS (Bankr. D. Neb. Aug. 11, 2020)

    The Nebraska Supreme Court has said that "summary judgments, judgments on a directed verdict, judgments after trial, default judgments, and consent judgments are all generally considered to be on the merits for purposes of res judicata." Young v. Govier & Milone, L.P., 835 N.W.2d 684, 696 (Neb. 2013) (citing DeVaux v. DeVaux, 514 N.W.2d 640, 646 (Neb. 1994) (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Alisha C. v. Jeremy C., 808 N.W.2d 875, 882 (Neb. 2012))). Neither party has provided this court with the state court order and judgment, but DN quoted this relevant section in its brief: