Appealability of Interlocutory Orders and Mootness of Prejudgment Attachments Established in Czech v. Allen

Introduction

In Czech v. Allen, 318 Neb. 904 (May 9, 2025), the Nebraska Supreme Court clarified two critical procedural doctrines in civil litigation: (1) appeals may be taken only from final orders or judgments as defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902, and interlocutory rulings are not appealable; and (2) a prejudgment attachment is a provisional remedy that becomes moot once a final judgment disposes of the case.

The case arose from a wrongful death suit brought by Victoria A. Czech, personal representative of the estate of Brett Allen Torres, against Keith L. Allen, who had been criminally convicted of Torres’s murder. Two appeals were consolidated: No. S-23-1037, filed mid-trial and challenging interlocutory rulings, and No. S-24-047, filed after a jury verdict and final judgment awarding damages to Czech. The Court dismissed the first appeal for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the second appeal in all respects.

Summary of the Judgment

• The district court denied Allen’s motions for change of venue and to exclude evidence of his criminal conviction (motion in limine), ruled on partial summary judgment for liability, ordered prejudgment attachment, rejected Allen’s due-process objections to that attachment, denied his request for production of an incarcerated witness (writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum), and refused to stay the proceedings.
• In No. S-23-1037, Allen sought to appeal those interlocutory orders before final judgment. The Supreme Court held those orders were not “final orders” under § 25-1902 and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
• In No. S-24-047, after a jury awarded Czech $130,000, Allen appealed the same rulings plus the final judgment. The Court concluded:
  1. no abuse of discretion in venue or timeliness rulings,
  2. no preserved error in overruling the motion in limine,
  3. the summary-judgment challenge could not be reviewed because the record lacked the evidence opposing the motion,
  4. the challenges to prejudgment attachment were moot in light of the final judgment,
  5. denial of the habeas corpus ad testificandum was not an abuse of discretion because the motion was filed too late, and
  6. the trial court properly retained jurisdiction despite a non-perfected interlocutory appeal.
• The final judgment in favor of Czech was thus affirmed.

Analysis

1. Precedents and Statutory Authorities Cited

• Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902: Defines “final orders” appealable to Nebraska appellate courts.
• Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-410: Authorizes change of venue “in the interest of justice.”
• Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609(5) & § 27-403: Rules on admissibility of prior convictions (limiting impeachment and exclusion for prejudice).
• Jurisdiction & Appeal and Error Cases: In re Hessler Living Trust (final orders), Dugan v. State (perfecting appeal), JCB Enters. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm. (record on appeal burden), State v. Clark (motions in limine), Main St. Props. v. City of Bellevue (summary judgment de novo).
• Mootness Doctrine: Events after filing that eliminate personal interest (e.g., New Hartford v. CT Resources Recovery Auth.; Blackmore v. L & D Development).

2. Legal Reasoning

(a) Appealability of Interlocutory Orders. The Court examined § 25-1902’s four categories of final orders. The pretrial rulings on venue, limine, attachment, habeas corpus ad testificandum, and stay did not “determine the action,” nor were they summary applications after judgment or based on sovereign-immunity grounds. They were interlocutory and thus non-appealable.

(b) Mootness of Prejudgment Attachment. A prejudgment attachment is a provisional remedy to secure assets pending final disposition. Once a final judgment fixes the plaintiff’s recovery, the attachment order is superseded and no longer actionable on appeal.

(c) Venue Discretion. Under § 25-410 and established abuse-of-discretion standards, Allen failed to prove pervasive, prejudicial pretrial publicity or community prejudice preventing impaneling an impartial jury.

(d) Preservation of Record on Summary Judgment. Evidence considered at a summary-judgment hearing must be preserved in a bill of exceptions. Absent opposing affidavits or exhibits in the record, the appellate court presumes the lower court’s order was correct.

(e) Motion in Limine vs. Objection at Trial. A motion in limine only prevents prejudicial evidence from reaching the jury; after overruled, a party must object when the evidence is offered at trial or summary-judgment hearing to preserve the issue.

(f) Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum. Courts require timely motions to produce incarcerated witnesses for trial. A late-filed request invites strategic delay and is denied as an abuse of process.

(g) Effect of an Unperfected Appeal on Trial Court Jurisdiction. A trial court retains jurisdiction unless the appeal is perfected from a final order or judgment; interlocutory appeals do not divest it of authority.

3. Impact on Future Cases and the Law

• Clarifies that interlocutory rulings must await final judgment before appeal, reducing piecemeal litigation.
• Reaffirms strict preservation requirements for summary-judgment records and motions in limine.
• Establishes that prejudgment attachments cannot be separately appealed once a final award is entered.
• Limits strategic use of writs ad testificandum filed after trial commences.
• Assures trial courts of continued jurisdiction absent a perfected appeal from a final order.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Interlocutory Order: A ruling made before the final decision in a case. Examples include pretrial motions on venue, evidence exclusion, or interim attachments. Nebraska law allows appeals only from final orders that terminate the action or fit statutory categories.

Final Order (§ 25-1902): Any decision that ends the case or disposes of a substantial right in a special proceeding. Partial rulings on liability, evidence, or procedure before trial conclusion are not final.

Prejudgment Attachment: A creditor’s temporary seizure of a debtor’s property to secure eventual enforcement of a money judgment. It expires or becomes moot once a final judgment establishes the debt and remedies.

Motion in Limine: A pretrial request to bar certain evidence from jury consideration. If denied, the movant must object again at the time the evidence is offered to preserve appellate review.

Summary Judgment Standard: Granted when no genuine issue of material fact exists and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Bill of Exceptions: The formal record of evidence and proceedings needed to review a trial court’s decision on appeal, especially for motions decided without a jury.

Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum: A court order directing that an incarcerated person be brought to court to testify. It must be requested well before trial to avoid disruption.

Mootness: A case becomes moot if events render the central dispute academic, so that a court can no longer grant effective relief.

Conclusion

Czech v. Allen reaffirms that Nebraska appellate courts may not entertain appeals from interlocutory orders under § 25-1902, underscores the provisional nature of prejudgment attachments (which are moot once a final judgment issues), and stresses strict compliance with preservation, timeliness, and procedural rules. Practitioners must await final judgment to challenge pretrial rulings on appeal, ensure full preservation of summary-judgment materials, lodge contemporaneous objections after limine denials, file timely motions for incarcerated witnesses, and recognize that unperfected interlocutory appeals do not halt trial court proceedings.