Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case involved an intrachurch dispute between the members of Bethel Lutheran Church (Bethel), a nonprofit corporation organized under Nebraska law. The Bethel congregation voted by at least two-third majority vote to disaffiliate from the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) and instead sought to affiliate with the Lutheran Congregation in Mission for Christ. Bethel’s governing documents were subsequently amended, including its constitution. The minority members filed suit seeking a declaration that the majority members’ efforts in changing affiliation and adopting new corporate governance documents were prohibited and void because they were not given permission to do so by the ELCA. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that this case did not involve a doctrinal dispute but, rather, simply involved the interpretation and application of church governance documents and could be decided using neutral principles of law. Remanded. View "Aldrich v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Marion’s Quality Services, Inc. was a Nebraska corporation doing business as It’s a Kidz World Child Care Center (Center) and as Deb’s Learning Place Family Child Care Home II (Home). In 2012, the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), a state agency responsible for the enforcement of the Child Care Licensing Act, revoked Marion’s licenses to operate the Center and the Home. Marion’s submitted an administrative appeal, and the cases were consolidated. After an administrative appeal hearing, DHHS upheld the revocation of the license for the Home but reversed the revocation of the Center’s license. In lieu of revocation of the license, DHHS imposed an alternative penalty in the form of additional probation and a civil penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s ruling upholding DHHS’ findings regarding the Center’s license was supported by competent evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; and (2) the district court’s ruling upholding DHHS’ findings regarding the Home’s license was supported by competent evidence, conformed to the law, and was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unreasonable. View "Marion’s Quality Servs., Inc. v. Neb. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

Plaintiff was a home inspector and the sole member of an LLC. Two years after Plaintiff inspected a house of the client of a real estate agent (“Agent”) affiliated with a brokerage firm (“Company”), the Agent sent an e-mail to the Company’s real estate agents and employees stating that Plaintiff was a “total idiot.” Plaintiff sued the Agent and the Company, alleging libel, false light invasion of privacy, and tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that a qualified privilege protected the e-mail and that the evidence failed to show that Plaintiff had a business relationship or expectancy with either the Agent or the Company. Defendant attempted to appeal for both himself and the LLC. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err in its judgment regarding the claims asserted by Plaintiff in his personal capacity; and (2) the portion of the judgment as it related to the LLC must be vacated because, where Plaintiff was not licensed to practice law in Nebraska, his appeal for the LLC was a nullity. View "Steinhausen v. HomeServices of Neb., Inc." on Justia Law

Martin Linscott, Rolf Shasteen and Tony Brock formed the law firm Shasteen, Linscott & Brock (SLB). Linscott drafted a proposed shareholder agreement contemplating that if a shareholder left the firm, he would receive one-third of all fees from existing in-process cases. After Linscott left the firm, Linscott brought suit individually and derivatively on behalf of SLB against Shasteen and Brock seeking to recover one-third of attorney fees recovered from the SLB cases that existed at the time he withdrew as a shareholder. The district court ultimately concluded (1) the agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds; (2) the “unfinished business rule” had no application to this case; and (3) therefore, Linscott was not owed any attorney fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in (1) determining that the absence of any definition of the term “net fees” prevented the formation of an implied in fact contract; and (2) determining that the statute of frauds rendered any implied contract void. Remanded. View "Linscott v. Shasteen" on Justia Law

Appellants - four of the partners in the Jacobs Cattle Company partnership - sought dissolution and liquidation of the partnership. Appellees - the partnership and the remaining partners - filed a counterclaim seeking dissociation of Appellants instead of dissolution. The district court dissociated Appellants and ordered the partnership to buy out their interests. In a previous appeal, the Supreme Court held that judicial dissociation was proper but determined that the district court erred in calculating the proper distributions to buy out the dissociated partners. On remand, the district court determined that the profit from the hypothetical capital gain should be credited to the partners’ accounts in accordance with their capital percentages, rather than the income percentages. This resulted in a lower buyout distribution to the dissociated partners. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in calculating the distributions required for the buyout. Remanded. View "Robertson v. Jacobs Cattle Co." on Justia Law

Emerson Link was elected as the resident director of Skyline Manor, Inc., a Nebraska non-profit corporation without members whose management was vested in a board of directors. Skyline owns the Skyline Retirement Community (SRC) in Omaha. After attending and participating in a board meeting, Link filed a derivative action on behalf of Skyline, alleging that five of Skyline’s directors had engaged in financial mismanagement. The district court dismissed the complaint, concluding that Link lacked standing to bring the derivative action because, at the time Link was elected as the resident director, Skyline was not operating SRC as a retirement community, and therefore, Link’s election was null and void. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Link had standing to bring this derivative action because Link was duly elected as the resident director and was serving in that capacity at the time he filed the derivative action. Remanded. View "Skyline Manor, Inc. v. Rynard" on Justia Law

In 1976, a family farming partnership was formed among Glenn Elting and his two sons, Kerwin and Perry. The partners comprising the partnership changed over the years, but the management of the partnership remained with Glenn, Kerwin, and Perry. In 2008 and 2009, Kerwin entered into a series of grain contracts on behalf of the partnership that resulted in significant losses to the partnership. In 2013, Perry and his son and wife (Appellees) filed an amended complaint against Kerwin (Appellant) alleging that Kerwin had entered into a series of grain contracts on behalf of the partnership without the authority to do so, resulting in significant losses to the partnership. The district court awarded judgment and damages to Appellees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court was not clearly wrong in determining that Kerwin was not authorized to enter into the contracts on behalf of the partnership and that his actions were not ratified; and (2) Kerwin was not shielded from liability by the limitation of liability clause contained in the controlling partnership agreement. View "Elting v. Elting" on Justia Law

Appellants obtained a valid default judgment against Dale and Vicki Jensen. Appellant had a summons and order of garnishment in aid of execution issued to Pioneer Ventures, LLC. Pioneer Ventures timely filed its answers to Appellants’ interrogatories with the clerk of court. Appellants were not served with the answers but independently learned of the answers approximately one week later. Appellants subsequently filed an objection to the answers to interrogatories. The trial court ruled that Appellants’ objection was untimely because it was filed more than twenty days after Pioneer Ventures had filed its answers. On appeal, Appellants argued that the trial court erred by (1) ruling that the twenty-day time limit began to run from when the answer was filed and not when Appellants received actual notice, and (2) not requiring service of Pioneer Venture’s answers upon Appellants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the garnishment statutes do not require the garnishee to serve or give notice to the garnishor of the interrogatory answers. View "ML Manager, LLC v. Jensen" on Justia Law

Braunger Foods sold food product supplies to Hungry's North, a business owned by Michael Sears. Braunger Foods filed this action against Sears and Hungry's (collectively Hungry's), seeking to recover amounts Braunger Foods claimed were due for sales it had made on credit to Hungry's. The district court (1) entered judgment against Hungry's for amounts it concluded were owing to Braunger Foods; and (2) entered no judgment against Sears, concluding that a guaranty, by which Braunger Foods sought to hold Sears personally liable for the debt, was ineffective. Braunger Foods appealed the trial court's conclusion that the guaranty was unenforceable against Sears. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the guaranty was enforceable against Sears. Remanded with directions to enter judgment against Sears. View "Braunger Foods, LLC v. Sears" on Justia Law

Republican Valley Biofuels (RVBF) issued a confidential private placement memorandum seeking investors in a biodiesel production facility. DMK Biodiesel (DMK) and Lanoha RVBF (Lanoha) invested $600,000 and $400,000 respectively in RVBF, which was being promoted by four individuals (Promoters). Renewable Fuels Technology (Renewable Fuels) was the manager of RVBF. DMK and Lanoha entered into and executed separate subscription agreements with RVBF. DMK and Lanoha later filed a complaint against Renewable Fuels and Promoters, alleging that Defendants fraudulently induced them to invest funds in RVBF. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to take judicial notice, requesting the district court to take judicial notice of the confidential private placement memorandum for RVBF and the subscription agreements executed between RVBF and DMK and Lanoha. The district court granted the motions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the private placement memorandum and the subscription agreements were properly considered matters outside the pleading, an evidentiary hearing was required. Remanded. View "DMK Biodiesel, LLC v. McCoy" on Justia Law