First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. Chadron Energy Corp.
| Decision Date | 31 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-435,88-435 |
| Citation | 459 N.W.2d 736,236 Neb. 199 |
| Parties | FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA, a National Bank, Appellant, v. CHADRON ENERGY CORPORATION, a Nebraska Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Summary Judgment. A party is entitled to summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences which may be drawn from the material facts, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
2. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. In an appellate review of a summary judgment, the court reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deductible from the evidence.
3. Courts: Judgments: Judicial Notice: Res Judicata. Where cases are interwoven and interdependent, and the controversy has already been considered and determined in a prior proceeding involving one of the parties now before the court, the court has a right to examine its own records and take judicial notice of its own proceedings and judgment in the prior action.
4. Attorney Fees: Appeal and Error. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-824(2) (Reissue 1989) authorizes attorney fees for services in defending against a frivolous appeal to the Supreme Court whether or not fees were requested or ordered in the trial court.
5. Actions: Words and Phrases. All doubts as to whether an action is frivolous should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, and sanctions should not be imposed except in the clearest cases.
James B. Cavanagh, of Erickson & Sederstrom, P.C., Omaha, for appellant.
M.J. Bruckner and W. Scott Davis, of Bruckner, O'Gara, Keating, Sievers & Hendry, P.C., Lincoln, for appellee.
The First National Bank of Omaha BO brought suit against Chadron Energy Corporation (CEC) to collect the amount alleged to be due on a promissory note dated March 29, 1982. FNBO appeals the order of the district court, which held that the promissory note had been paid and granted summary judgment in favor of CEC. This case, although briefed separately, was consolidated for argument with Chadron Energy Corp. v. First Nat. Bank, 236 Neb. 173, 459 N.W.2d 718 (1990) (CEC II ). Most of the facts essential to a determination of this appeal will be found in that opinion. We affirm.
A party is entitled to summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences which may be drawn from the material facts, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. John v. OO (Infinity) S Development Co., 234 Neb. 190, 450 N.W.2d 199 (1990). In an appellate review of a summary judgment, the court reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. Id.
The note which FNBO is trying to collect is one executed on March 29, 1982, by CEC in the amount of $666,000. It was secured by certain shares of the capital stock of First National Bank of Chadron, owned by CEC. We find it unnecessary to relate or discuss the various errors assigned by FNBO, because the disposition of this case is fully embodied in our decision in CEC II. Reference to that decision leaves no question that the note which FNBO is trying to collect here has been fully paid as the result of FNBO's action in selling the collateral and retaining the proceeds in an amount covering the debt of the note. Therefore, the question presented by this appeal is now moot, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Where cases are interwoven and interdependent, and the controversy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sports Courts of Omaha, Ltd. v. Meginnis
...in favor of the one whose legal position is in question. See, Millard v. Hyplains Dressed Beef, supra; First Nat. Bank v. Chadron Energy Corp., 236 Neb. 199, 459 N.W.2d 736 (1990); Shanks v. Johnson Abstract & Title, supra. On appeal, a trial court's decision allowing or disallowing an atto......
- Chadron Energy Corp. v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha
-
State v. Vann
...524 (1993) (where the Nebraska Supreme Court took judicial notice of actions filed in federal court); First Nat. Bank v. Chadron Energy Corp., 236 Neb. 199, 459 N.W.2d 736 (1990) (indicating that in cases where the controversy has been previously considered and involves one of the parties c......
-
Logan Ranch, Karg Partnership v. Farm Credit Bank of Omaha
...is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. First Nat. Bank v. Chadron Energy Corp., 236 Neb. 199, 459 N.W.2d 736 (1990). The section of the Act concerning the right of first refusal states in pertinent (a) General rule Agricultural ......