Case ID: neb_212/html/0582-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Krivosha, C.J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph Golda, appellant, v. City of Omaha, Nebraska, a municipal corporation, appellee.
    324 N.W.2d 264
    Filed September 17, 1982.
    No. 82-222.
    M. H. Weinberg of Weinberg & Weinberg, P.C., for appellant.
    Herbert M. Fitle, City Attorney, and George S. Selders, Jr., for appellee.
    
      Heard before Krivosha, C.J., Boslaugh, McCown, White, Hastings, and Caporale, JJ.
   Krivosha, C.J.

This action arises by reason of an order of dismissal entered by a three-judge Workmen’s Compensation Court on a petition for rehearing. The three-judge court found that the statute of limitations had run and that the appellant Golda was thereby precluded from bringing this action. We believe that the instant case is governed by our decisions in Kohlbeck v. City of Omaha, 211 Neb. 372, 318 N.W.2d 742 (1982), and Teague v. City of Omaha, 211 Neb. 872, 320 N.W.2d 779 (1982), and, accordingly, the motion of the appellee, City of Omaha, requesting summary affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the rules of this court should be granted. Summary affirmance is granted and the judgment of the Workmen’s Compensation Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Clinton, J., participating on briefs.