Legal Opinion

Czarnick v. Loup River Public Power District

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided July 20, 1973No. 38844Published

1Dissent · McCownMcCown, J.

I concur in the affirmance of the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for damages and dissent from that portion of the judgment which remands the cause for hearing insofar as it pertains to injunctive relief against future flooding.

If the plaintiff has no enforceable claim for damages against the State for the taking or damaging of her lands, she has no right to injunctive relief. The majority opinion relies upon Bordy v. State, 142 Neb. 714, 7 N. W. 2d 632, to support the dismissal of plaintiff’s causes of action for damages accruing from the floods of 1966 and 1969. Bordy holds that a suit…

Also in this document: Dissent · Boslaugh.

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Armbruster v. Stanton-Pilger Drainage DistrictNebraska Supreme Court · 1960
  2. State Ex Rel. Game, Forestation & Parks Commission v. HullNebraska Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Kime v. Cass CountyNebraska Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. RobertsNebraska Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Bordy v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1943

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API