Brian C. Buescher
How Judge Buescher rules, drawn from 19 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Buescher
Brian Craig Buescher is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. Appointed by President Donald J. Trump, Judge Buescher received a commission on August 6, 2019.
Judge Buescher's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Buescher, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Civil Jury Trial Deadlines and Practices Order ↗
- Civil Non-Jury Trial Deadlines and Practices Order ↗
Key rules
Trial
File civil jury trial motions in limine at least 28 days before trial, unless separately ordered.
“Motions in limine and motions seeking pretrial evidentiary hearings regarding the admissibility of evidence shall be filed no later than twenty-eight (28) days before trial.”
Trial
For civil jury trials, file and email agreed jury instructions and a verdict form in Word at least 21 days before trial.
“No later than twenty-one (21) days before trial, each party shall file and email Word versions of the following to chambers:”
Trial
Deliver two copies of civil bench-trial exhibits to chambers 14 days before trial, in binders and electronically.
“Two copies of trial exhibits shall be delivered to the undersigned’s judge’s chambers fourteen (14) days prior to the trial. The exhibits shall be provided both in binders and in an electronic format.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Buescher decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Davis v. Simon Contractors, Buescher denied Simon’s summary judgment motion because disputed facts about the danger of wet concrete and whether Davis was a sophisticated user required jury resolution.
“The question of whether wet concrete is 'unreasonably dangerous' under a strict liability theory is a question of fact for the jury to decide.”
In The Rock Place II v. Sanitary and Improvement District No. 596, Buescher denied partial summary judgment based on issue preclusion because the offset of special benefits had not been litigated in the prior state case.
“That issue was not actually litigated, directly addressed, or necessarily included in the special assessment lawsuit.”
In one Nebraska malpractice case, excluding the plaintiff’s own standard-of-care expert did not compel summary judgment: a deposition from the defendants’ expert, cross-endorsed by the plaintiff, supplied evidence for a jury on duty and breach.
“Dr. Frey’s deposition qualifies as materials in the record available to show duty and breach such that a reasonable jury could find for Plaintiff.”
Procedural preferences
In Davis v. Simon Contractors, Inc., Buescher excluded both sides’ proposed experts in a wet concrete injury case. Simon had not shown that its engineering vice president had specialized knowledge of the particular industry and warning issues on which he proposed to testify; the court also denied Simon’s summary judgment motion.
“Simon has failed to establish that Daily possesses sufficient specialized knowledge to qualify as an expert on the issues he seeks to opine about in this case.”
In J.P. v. State of Nebraska, Buescher dismissed the Section 1983 claim against supervisor LaBouchardiere because the complaint did not allege his personal involvement, and dismissed ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims seeking only emotional distress damages.
“a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant [including supervisors], through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”
Cautions
In The Rock Place II v. Sanitary and Improvement District No. 596, Buescher denied the district’s third summary judgment motion and called its renewed undivided-fee argument meritless, noting that he had addressed it twice before.
“The 'undivided fee' argument SID 596 presents in support of its summary judgment motion is meritless.”
In a U-visa work-authorization suit, the court granted a jurisdictional dismissal after finding that the challenged determination was discretionary and subject to a statutory review bar.
“Defendant has satisfied both elements that trigger the jurisdictional bar”
In an immigration habeas case, the court denied a requested bond hearing while removal proceedings remained pending because it found the mandatory-detention provision applicable.
“§ 1225(b) requires his detention.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the testimony of Jay Daily, Filing 52, is granted;”
“Defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Nathan Mayercsik, Filing 54, is granted; and”
“Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Filing 50, is denied.”
“Rock Place's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Filing 136, is denied; and”
“SID 596's Motion for Summary Judgment, Filing 139, is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that the September 6, 2022, Partial Motion [sic] to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint by Defendants in Case No. 4:21cv3315, Filing 40, is granted.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Viad Corp's Motion to Dismiss, Filing 19, is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' March 18, 2022, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Filing 20, is denied.”
“Accordingly, Blue Ox's Motion in Limine, Filing 77, is granted.”
“the Court grants Blue Ox's Motion in Limine. Filing 79.”
“the Court denies Danko's five motions in limine, and denies Blue Ox's motion to strike as moot.”
“denies Defendant's Motion to Strike, Filing 108.”
“Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Preliminary Approval of Settlement, Filing 318, and the relevant parts of the record, the Motion is GRANTED”
“IT IS ORDERED: (1) Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Filing 33, is denied.”
“IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendants' Motion for Partial Dismissal, Filing 11, is granted; and 2. Patricia J. Carter's Equal Protection Claim is dismissed.”
“Mark Dietrich's Motion to Strike, Filing 37, is denied;”
“Nebraska Medical Center's Motion to Dismiss, Filing 40, is granted; A.W.'s claims against Nebraska Medical Center for vicarious liability, tortious conduct and fraudulent concealment are dismissed with prejudice.”
“Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Designated Expert, Dr. Tellefsen, Filing 421, is denied; and”
“Defendants' Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Plaintiff's Designated Expert, Amy Oppenheimer, Filing 425, is granted. Testimony of Amy Oppenheimer will not be permitted at trial.”
“The Motion to Dismiss, Filing 69, filed by Defendants Douglas County, Timothy Dunning, and Adi Pour is granted as follows: a. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint as to the County Defendants is dismissed without prejudice;”
“The Motion to Dismiss, Filing 73, filed by Defendants Scott Buresh, Elizabeth Butler, City of Omaha... is granted as follows: ... b. The Ninth Cause of Action, promissory estoppel, is dismissed with prejudice; and c. The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Causes of Action are dismissed without prejudice;”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The 15 sampled civil filings include three coded civil-rights matters, one other statutory action, one telephone-consumer case, one contract case, and nine with no nature-of-suit code. All 15 have recorded termination dates; this bounded slice does not establish the judge-wide case mix.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 3 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 4 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 4 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 1 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, not for Judge Buescher: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 734 | 5.4 months |
| Closed with no court action | 210 | 3 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 506 | 6.9 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 13 | 27.1 months |
| Closed during trial | 5 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 734 | 5.4 months |
| Sep 2024 | 522 | 7.8 months |
| Sep 2023 | 467 | 7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 667 | 5.2 months |
| Sep 2021 | 588 | 6.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 508 | 8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 492 | 8.6 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Buescher with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Buescher, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Buescher's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace