TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP v. Tanderup

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court considered consolidated appeals arising from condemnation proceedings in which landowners sought attorney fees and costs after TransCanada voluntarily dismissed its actions. The court held that the county court plainly erred by failing to conduct the evidentiary hearing required by the district court’s specific remand mandate. It affirmed the district court’s judgments, emphasizing that a lower court must comply with the scope of an appellate mandate and may not alter or circumvent it.

Holdings

1. The county court plainly erred by failing to conduct the new evidentiary hearing required by the district court's specific remand orders. A lower court has an unqualified duty to follow an appellate mandate and may not disregard or alter the action expressly ordered on remand.
2. The general-remand exception did not apply. The district court's orders were specific mandates, not general remands, and the county court could not determine without receiving evidence that only one judgment was possible.
3. The county court lacked authority to limit the rehearing's evidence to the contents of the original affidavits. The parties were entitled to a meaningful opportunity to present whatever evidence was relevant to the attorney-fee motions, whether similar to or different from the evidence originally submitted.
4. The unappealed district court orders remanding the matters for rehearing became final and the law of the case, regardless of whether those orders were legally correct.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the county court plainly erred by failing to conduct the evidentiary hearing required by the district court's remand orders.
2. Whether the district court's remand for a rehearing on the merits was a specific mandate or a general remand subject to the exception allowing judgment without a rehearing when undisputed facts permit only one result.
3. Whether the county court could limit the evidence at the rehearing to the affidavits presented at the original hearing based on the similarity of these cases to a prior case.
4. Whether the unappealed district court remand orders became the law of the case and required the county court to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Disposition

affirmed