used was not the best available does not impose liability by itself. Considering the experience and professional standing of the Coop, Noble, and the decedent, the continuing propane warnings, and the training about the dangers to all involved, we cannot assume or speculate in the absence of admissible evidence to the contrary, that the Coop, Noble, and the decedent did not know of the gas detectors availability. We understand the good efforts of the estate in trying to make its case, but mere arguments cannot defeat an order of summary judgment fully supported by the law and the facts of record, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the estate. The facts support only one conclusion. See, e.g., McDaniel v. McNeil Lab., Inc., 196 Neb. 190, 241 N.W.2d 822, 828 (Neb.1976) (<HOLDING>). There are no triable issues of fact left to
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to accept the defendants guilty pleas to two counts of the indictment and stating that even if the trial court erred the error had not prejudiced the defendant because he was found guilty by the jury of the charges to which he intended to plead and the evidence of the other crimes would have been admissible in the trial for the first degree murder charge holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion holding that the defendant must provide facts to establish what the conflict was holding that the jury need not agree on the theory supporting the conviction if there is sufficient evidence to support either theory holding that where there is no essential conflict as to the facts and the evidence the trial court was correct in refusing to submit the theory of strict liability to the jury