Czech v. Allen

Czech, 318 Neb. 904 (Neb. 2025) · Nebraska Supreme Court · May 9, 2025 · No. S-23-1037, S-24-047

Summary

This Nebraska Supreme Court opinion consolidates two appeals from a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the estate of Brett Allen Torres against Keith L. Allen. The court addresses preliminary jurisdictional questions, dismissing one appeal because it challenged non-final interlocutory orders, while retaining jurisdiction over the second appeal following a jury verdict. On the merits, the court reviews rulings regarding a change of venue, a motion in limine to exclude criminal conviction evidence, partial summary judgment, and prejudgment attachment, ultimately affirming the district court’s decisions.

Court
Nebraska Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Miller-Lerman, J.; Funke, C.J.; Cassel, J.; Stacy, J.; Papik, J.; Freudenberg, J.; Bergevin, J.
Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Decision date
May 9, 2025
Docket number
S-23-1037, S-24-047
Procedural posture
Appeal from district court orders; appeal No. S-23-1037 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, appeal No. S-24-047 affirmed.
Standard of review
De novo for summary judgment; abuse of discretion for venue, motions in limine, stay of proceedings; plain error for unpreserved issues.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Keith L. Allen v. Victoria A. Czech, Personal Representative of the Estate of Brett Allen Torres
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

appellate jurisdictionsummary judgmentvenuemootnessappellate procedure

Practice areas

civil proceduretortsevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over appeal No. S-23-1037.
  2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Allen’s motion to change venue.
  3. Whether the district court erred in overruling Allen’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of his convictions.
  4. Whether the grant of partial summary judgment to Czech was proper.
  5. Whether the order of prejudgment attachment is moot after judgment.
  6. Whether the denial of Allen’s motion for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum was proper.
  7. Whether the denial of Allen’s motion to stay proceedings was proper.

Holdings

  1. The Court lacks jurisdiction because the appealed orders are not final orders under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25‑1902(1). The appeal is dismissed.
  2. The denial is affirmed; Allen failed to show pervasive pre‑trial publicity that made a fair trial impossible.
  3. The Court affirms; Allen failed to preserve the issue because he did not object when the evidence was offered.
  4. The grant is affirmed; the record is presumed sufficient and the order is presumed correct.
  5. The issue is moot; the final judgment supersedes the attachment and no further relief is available.
  6. The denial is affirmed; the motion was untimely and therefore proper to deny.
  7. The denial is affirmed; the district court retained jurisdiction because the appeal was not perfected from a final order.

Key quotations

An appellate court will affirm a lower court’s grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence 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. (at 5)
We find that they do not [final orders] ... As such, we lack jurisdiction over case No. S-23-1037. (at 8)

Factual background

Keith L. Allen shot and killed Brett Allen Torres in May 2020 and was convicted of first‑degree murder. Victoria A. Czech, as personal representative of Torres’ estate, sued Allen for wrongful death and obtained a prejudgment attachment. The district court granted Czech’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability, denied Allen’s motions to change venue and in limine, and entered a $130,000 verdict for Czech.

Procedural history

The district court for Lincoln County granted a prejudgment attachment, denied motions to change venue and in limine, and granted partial summary judgment in favor of Czech. Allen appealed the orders in two consolidated appeals (S-23-1037 filed during trial, S-24-047 filed after judgment). The Supreme Court dismissed the first appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the district court's orders on the second appeal.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…