Leach v. Dahm

were lease payments that did not confer a proprietary interest
in the vehicle.
[7] Furthermore, the issues in a given case will be limited
to those which are pled.12 Rickerl’s operative complaint alleged
that the policy had been breached by Farmers’ refusal to repair
the vehicle, not that the insurance policy had been breached
by a failure to pay sufficient damages. Even had Rickerl pro-
vided evidence that she had a monetary interest in the Civic,
that would not have been an issue of material fact, because
Rickerl’s complaint did not place that fact at issue. Because
the pleadings do not place damages in dispute, Rickerl’s final
assignment of error is without merit.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the dis-
trict court properly granted Farmers’ motion for summary judg-
ment. Accordingly, we affirm.
A ffirmed.
G errArd, J., participating on briefs.
12 Spanish Oaks v. Hy-Vee, 265 Neb. 133, 655 N.W.2d 390 (2003).
KAtherine L eAch , AppeLLAnt, v. John dAhm , wArden,
nebrAsKA correctionAL center for
women, et AL., AppeLLees.
763 N.W.2d 83
Filed March 27, 2009. 	No. S-08-461.
1. Motions to Dismiss: Jurisdiction: Rules of the Supreme Court: Pleadings:
Appeal and Error. Aside from factual findings, which are reviewed for clear
error, the granting of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(1) is subject to de novo review.
2. Criminal Law: States: Prisoners. Nebraska’s Interstate Corrections Compact,
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3401 (Reissue 2008), provides for the transfer of prisoners
from one state to another for rehabilitation and correctional purposes, and estab-
lishes the rights and duties of the states sending and receiving prisoners.
3. ____: ____: ____. Under Nebraska’s Interstate Corrections Compact, Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 29-3401 (Reissue 2008), Nebraska, as the receiving state, acts solely as
agent for a sending state.
452 	277 NEBRASkA REPORtS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:51 AM CST

Appeal from the District Court for York County: ALAn G.
GLess, Judge. Affirmed.
Stacey L. Parr, of Svehla, thomas, Rauert & Grafton, P.C.,
for appellant.
Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and George R. Love for
appellees John Dahm and Robert Houston.
heAvicAn, 	c.J., 	wriGht, 	connoLLy, 	G errArd, 	stephAn,
mccormAcK, and miLLer-L ermAn, JJ.
G errArd, J.
katherine Leach was convicted of two counts of driving under
the influence manslaughter in Palm Beach County, Florida, but
is presently confined in York, Nebraska, under Nebraska’s
Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC).1 Leach filed an applica-
tion for habeas corpus relief in a Nebraska district court. the
primary issue presented on appeal is whether the Nebraska
courts have jurisdiction over this case under the ICC.
FACtS
Leach was convicted of two counts of driving under the
influence manslaughter in Palm Beach County and, in July
1999, was sentenced to 221⁄2 years’ imprisonment. Currently,
Leach is confined in the Nebraska Correctional Center for
Women. More than 8 years after her conviction, Leach filed
an “Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” in the York
County District Court, against various Nebraska state officials
responsible for her incarceration (collectively the State). In the
amended petition, Leach alleged that her Florida sentence was
void in violation of her right not to be subjected to cruel and
unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. In response, the State filed a motion to dismiss,
arguing, among other things, that the court lacked subject mat-
ter jurisdiction under Nebraska’s ICC. the ICC provides that
“[a]ny decision of the sending State in respect of any matter
over which it retains jurisdiction pursuant to this Compact shall
1 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3401 (Reissue 2008).
LEACH v. DAHM 	453
Cite as 277 Neb. 452

be conclusive upon and not reviewable within the receiving
State . . . .”2 After a hearing on the motion to dismiss, the court
dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Leach appeals.
ASSIGNMENtS OF ERROR
Leach assigns, restated, that the district court erred in (1)
concluding that it did not have jurisdiction over Leach and all
questions relating to her incarceration and (2) dismissing her
petition with prejudice.
StANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] Aside from factual findings, which are reviewed for clear
error, the granting of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction under Neb. Ct. R. Pldg. § 6-1112(b)(1) is
subject to de novo review.3
ANALYSIS
the issue presented on appeal is whether the district court
erred in granting the State’s motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction. We conclude that under the terms of the ICC, the
district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. In order to determine whether the district
court had jurisdiction over Leach’s amended petition for a writ
of habeas corpus, we turn to the ICC.
[2,3] the ICC provides for the transfer of prisoners from one
state to another for rehabilitation and correctional purposes,
and establishes the rights and duties of the states sending and
receiving prisoners.4 Florida and Nebraska have adopted the
ICC,5 and its provisions are dispositive of the narrow question
before us. Under the provisions of the ICC, an inmate confined
in an institution in a receiving state is at all times “subject to
2 § 29-3401, art. V(a).
3 See Citizens Opposing Indus. Livestock v. Jefferson Cty., 274 Neb. 386,
740 N.W.2d 362 (2007).
4 Smart v. Goord, 21 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
5 See, § 29-3401; Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3402 (Reissue 2008); Fla. Stat. Ann.
§§ 941.55 to 941.57 (West 2006).
454 	277 NEBRASkA REPORtS

the jurisdiction of the sending State.”6 Nebraska, as the receiv-
ing state, acts solely as agent for Florida, the sending state.7 As
a result, Leach is subject to Florida jurisdiction with respect
to whether her Florida sentence is unconstitutional under the
Eighth Amendment.8 Any hearings in Nebraska considering
whether Leach’s sentence was unconstitutional may be held
only if authorized by Florida and, if so held, are governed by
the laws of Florida.9 And Leach does not allege that Florida
authorized Nebraska to consider whether Leach’s sentence
was unconstitutional.
Leach argues that pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2801 et
seq. (Reissue 2008), the district court had jurisdiction over her
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Leach asserts that under
§ 29-2801, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be filed
in the county in which the prisoner is confined—here, York
County.10 We conclude, however, that § 29-2801 does not con-
flict with the ICC. York County would be the proper venue for
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Nebraska law,11 but
§ 29-2801 does not confer jurisdiction on a Nebraska court to
determine the validity of a Florida sentence.
A writ of habeas corpus is a statutory remedy available to
those who are detained without having been convicted of a
crime and committed for the same, those who are unlawfully
deprived of their liberty, or those who are detained without any
legal authority.12 It is not disputed that Leach was convicted
of a crime, so her right to habeas relief rests upon her allega-
tion that her sentence is unlawful. But pursuant to article IV(f)
6 See, § 29-3401, art. IV(c); Falkner v. Neb. Board of Parole, 213 Neb. 474,
330 N.W.2d 141 (1983). See, also, Brant v. Fielder, 883 P.2d 17 (Colo.
1994); Ellis v. DeLand, 786 P.2d 231 (Utah 1990); Dugger v. Jackson, 598
So. 2d 280 (Fla. App. 1992).
7 § 29-3401, art. IV(a). See, also, Brant, supra note 6; Ellis, supra note 6;
Meyer v. Moore, 826 So. 2d 330 (Fla. App. 2002).
8 See § 29-3401, art. IV(c).
9 See § 29-3401, art. IV(f).
10 See Anderson v. Houston, 274 Neb. 916, 744 N.W.2d 410 (2008).
11 See id.
12 Glantz v. Hopkins, 261 Neb. 495, 624 N.W.2d 9 (2001).
LEACH v. DAHM 	455
Cite as 277 Neb. 452

of the ICC, Nebraska is acting solely as agent for Florida.
Accordingly, Florida retains jurisdiction over questions relat-
ing to the constitutionality of Leach’s sentence. Leach must
bring any claim regarding her sentence to the authorities of the
State of Florida. Nebraska is bound by the terms of the ICC,
and therefore, we lack jurisdiction over Leach’s petition for
habeas relief.
CONCLUSION
the 	judgment 	of 	the 	district 	court 	dismissing 	Leach’s
amended petition for habeas corpus is affirmed. the denial of
habeas corpus relief is jurisdictional, and without prejudice to
any avenue of relief Leach may pursue in Florida.
A ffirmed.
LuciLLe K iLGore , AppeLLee And cross -AppeLLAnt, v.
nebrAsKA depArtment of heALth And humAn
services And the stAte of nebrAsKA,
AppeLLAnts And cross -AppeLLees ,
And L eeAnnA cArr And meLvin
wAshinGton, AppeLLees.
763 N.W.2d 77
Filed March 27, 2009. 	No. S-08-481.
1. Jurisdiction: Appeal and Error. A jurisdictional question which does not
involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law.
2. ____: ____. Before reaching the legal issues presented for review, it is the duty
of an appellate court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the matter
before it.
3. ____: ____. Notwithstanding whether the parties raise the issue of jurisdiction,
an appellate court has a duty to raise and determine the issue of jurisdiction
sua sponte.
4. Attorney Fees: Costs. Attorney fees, where recoverable, are generally treated as
an element of court costs.
5. Judgments: Final Orders: Attorney Fees: Costs: Appeal and Error. An award
of costs in a judgment is considered a part of the judgment. As such, a judgment
does not become final and appealable until the trial court has ruled upon a pend-
ing statutory request for attorney fees.
6. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. to be appealable, an order must satisfy the
final order requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902 (Reissue 2008).
456 	277 NEBRASkA REPORtS