Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

William Gross executed an agreement with David Fiala, Ltd. (FuturesOne) setting forth the terms of Gross’ employment with FuturesOne. The agreement contained an arbitration provision. FuturesOne later filed a complaint against Gross and three other individuals who had signed similar agreements with FuturesOne, alleging that after the defendants had resigned from FuturesOne they failed to pay amounts owed to FuturesOne and violated the agreement by competing with FuturesOne. Gross moved to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the claims in this action were not subject to arbitration under the arbitration provision of the agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred as a matter of law when it failed to determine that the arbitration provision was ambiguous and to thereafter resolve the ambiguity by considering appropriate extrinsic evidence. Remanded. View "David Fiala Ltd. v. Harrison" on Justia Law

Synergy4 Enterprises, Inc. brought an action against Pinnacle Bank on claims of promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud, alleging that Pinnacle Bank caused damages by orally assuring Synergy4 that Pinnacle would provide a $1 million credit line and then only providing $400,000 provided for in a commitment letter. The district court sustained Pinnacle’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Synergy4’s claims were barred by Nebraska’s credit agreement statute of frauds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Synergy4’s claims were based on a credit agreement that was not in writing, they were barred by Nebraska’s credit agreement statute of frauds. View "Synergy4 Enters., Inc. v. Pinnacle Bank" on Justia Law

Buyer entered into a contract with Seller under which Buyer agreed to purchase certain product manufactured by Seller. Buyer rarely purchased the contractual amount of 2,500 tons of product per month. Seller field an amended complaint against Seller, claiming breach of contract and alleging that Buyer’s failure to comply with the contract forced Seller to sell over 9,000 tons of product at prices significantly below the price Seller was guaranteed by the contract. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Seller, concluding, as a matter of law, that Buyer materially breached the contract. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment of the district court regarding Buyer’s liability for its material breach of the contract; but (2) reversed the court’s award of damages and prejudgment interest, holding that the court erred in awarding damages and prejudgment interest at the summary judgment stage due the existence of questions of fact relevant to Seller’s losses. Remanded. View "Siouxland Ethanol, LLC v. Sebade Bros., LLC" on Justia Law

A Landlord leased separate properties to two different sets of Tenants using nearly identical written documents. This appeal concerned a dispute between the Landlord and Tenants regarding whether the leases were enforceable for their stated five-year terms or whether a clause providing for “annual review of rental rates” resulted in unenforceable “agreements to agree.” The Landlord sued the Tenants in separate actions, seeking a declaratory judgment to determine its rights under the leases. The district court concluded that the leases were valid and enforceable for their five-year terms. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the terms of the leases were clear and unambiguous and contemplated only an annual review without requiring an annual agreement. View "Gibbons Ranches, LLC v. Bailey" on Justia Law

Appellee was employed by Appellant on two separate occasions. On each occasion, Appellee signed a noncompete agreement. After Appellee’s second term of employment ended he filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the noncompete agreements were unenforceable. The district court entered declaratory judgment in favor of Appellee, determining that the noncompete agreements were unreasonable and unenforceable because the scope of the noncompete agreements was greater than reasonably necessary to protect Appellant against unfair competition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the applicable noncompete agreement was greater than reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of Appellant and was therefore unreasonable and unenforceable. View "Gaver v. Schneider’s O.K. Tire Co." on Justia Law

Jack Irwin owed a warehouse that Shade rented to store personal property. West Gate Bank held notes payable from Shade that were secured by Shade’s personal property. Shade later defaulted on the notes. Irwin and West Gate subsequently agreed to move Shade’s personal property pursuant to an “Abandonment” document. When Shade filed for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court approved distribution of the proceeds in Shade’s personal property to West Gate, concluding that the Abandonment document was not an assignment or release of West Gate’s perfected security interest. Thereafter, Irwin filed this action against West Bank in district court alleging that West Gate breached its obligations under the Abandonment document by failing to pay the proceeds to Irwin. The district curt entered judgment in favor of West Gate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s determination regarding the preclusive effect of the bankruptcy court’s ruling with respect to an assignment or release of West Gate’s security interest in Shade’s property was not relevant to this appeal; and (2) the district court did not err in concluding that the Abandonment document was not an enforceable contract or a warranty.View "Irwin v. West Gate Bank" on Justia Law

RFD-TV, LLC, a television programming service, executed an affiliation agreement with Sunflower Broadband Corporation that granted Sunflower a nonexclusive right to distribute RFD programming to Sunflower’s subscribers in Kansas in exchange for a fee. Knology, Inc., subsequently purchased Sunflower’s assets. Prior to this purchase Knology was providing cable service to subscribers in South Dakota. Knology later became a wholly owned subsidiary of WOW! Cable. Two years later, Knology and WOW ceased distribution of RFD programming and did not pay fees. RFD sued Knology and WOW (collectively, Appellees) for breach of contract. Appellees filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over them. The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the minimum contacts requirement between Appellees, as nonresident defendants, and the State had not been met. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the district court (1) did not err in dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction; and (2) erred in dismissing the case with prejudice. View "RFD-TV v. WildOpenFence Fin." 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

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants, including Lyle Sukup and Kristen Sukup, seeking payment for a boundary fence he built between his property and the property in which Defendants had an interest. Specifically, Defendant alleged that he had an agreement with the Sukups to build the fence between his property and the Sukups’ property and that the Sukups agreed to share equally in the cost. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Plaintiff's cause of action arose under Nebraska's "fence law" and that the county courts had exclusive jurisdiction over fence contribution cases. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff’s complaint was not simply an action for contribution but was also a common-law contract action that was subject to the district court’s jurisdiction. View "Kotrous v. Zerbe" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, property owners, filed a quiet title action against owners of adjacent lots, seeking a declaration that express easements granted in favor of the adjacent lots were invalid. The defendants filed counterclaims asserting that the express easements were valid. Plaintiffs submitted to Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company ("Commonwealth") a claim for defense pursuant to a policy of title insurance issued by Commonwealth insuring Plaintiffs’ property, but Commonwealth denied the claim. In the quiet title action, the district court extinguished the express easements and denied the counterclaims but concluded that the defendants possessed implied easements. While the quiet title action was pending, Plaintiffs filed the instant action against Commonwealth, seeking a determination that Commonwealth breached its duty under the policy by refusing to provide a defense to the counterclaims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Commonwealth. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in sustaining Commonwealth’s motion for summary judgment because Commonwealth did not violate its contract with Plaintiffs by denying coverage or indemnification.View "Woodle v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law