Clarence Arlen Beam

This case involved a lawsuit by the Lundeens against Canadian Pacific Railway arising from allegations that implicated federal railroad safety regulations under 49 U.S.C. § 20106, with disputes over whether state tort claims were preempted. Earlier proceedings addressed subject matter jurisdiction in federal district court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367, leading to a remand order, an appeal reversing it, a merits dismissal of the complaint, and a subsequent appeal. The panel majority's decision on these matters prompted this dissent from the denial of panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, which argues that appellate jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 was limited to the later merits judgment, that prior jurisdictional rulings could not be revisited, and that the analysis overlooked Supreme Court precedent on jurisdiction, the regulatory nature of tort claims, and due process limits on retroactive changes to preemption defenses.

procedurefederal powertorts & liability

This case involves an appeal from a bankruptcy court's decision in a Chapter 11 proceeding regarding whether an oversecured creditor could include attorney's fees in its allowed secured claim under 11 U.S.C. § 506(b). The bankruptcy court ruled that such fees could not be included because the fee agreement was unenforceable under Nebraska state law. On de novo review, the district court reversed, holding that the 1978 Bankruptcy Reform Act established a federal standard allowing reasonable fees provided under the agreement, with the term "fees" encompassing attorney's fees, and that this federal rule controls over contrary state law. The court remanded the matter for a determination of the reasonableness of the fees.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case involved Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company suing Franklyn Novak for trademark infringement after Novak marketed T-shirts, mugs, and other items using the phrases 'Mutant of Omaha' and 'Mutant Kingdom' along with logos resembling Mutual's Indianhead design, often with nuclear holocaust themes. The court ruled in favor of Mutual on its claims under the Lanham Act, the Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and common-law trademark infringement, finding a likelihood of consumer confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the products, but rejected the trademark disparagement claim. Novak's arguments that his designs constituted protected political parody or satire under the First Amendment did not prevent liability. The court issued a permanent injunction barring Novak from using the infringing designations and logos on his merchandise. The core reasoning focused on the substantial similarity between the marks and the potential for confusion despite the non-competing nature of the goods.

business & regulatory

This case involves the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) pursuing a deficiency judgment against defendants who guaranteed defaulted promissory notes from an insolvent Nebraska bank. After the state court dismissed the case under Nebraska law for improper notice of collateral sale, the FDIC removed the action to federal court and sought to proceed under federal common law. The court decided to deny the defendants' motions to dismiss or remand and granted the FDIC leave to amend its complaint, ruling that federal common law applies instead of state law. The core reasoning was that the FDIC, as an involuntary creditor in purchase and assumption transactions, requires uniform federal rules to maintain stability in the banking system, as analyzed under the factors from United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case is an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order in a Chapter 7 proceeding involving Annett Ford, Inc., a Ford dealership. The Bankruptcy Court had ruled that unpaid post-petition payroll taxes qualified as administrative expenses payable from the secured creditor's collateral proceeds under 11 U.S.C. § 506(c), but that interest and penalties on those taxes did not benefit the creditor and should not be paid from that fund. The District Court reversed, holding that the penalties and interest must also be paid from the liquidation proceeds. The court reasoned that the debtor continued operating with the secured creditor's approval to preserve going-concern value, and that the taxes, interest, and penalties were an inseparable package arising directly from those post-petition activities that benefited the creditor.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a personal injury lawsuit brought by Thoris C. Mickelson against Northern Plains Natural Gas Company after he was injured at a pipeline construction site. Mickelson had received workers' compensation benefits from his employer, Willbros, which was contracted by the Northern Border partnership, of which Northern Plains was a partner and also served as construction manager. The court ruled that Northern Plains was not immune from the suit under South Dakota's workers' compensation laws. The reasoning was that Northern Plains was not Mickelson's direct employer, and its role as construction manager created separate duties for which it could be held liable independently of any immunity tied to the partnership's payment of insurance premiums.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

This case arose from adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court where the debtor-in-possession, Associated Grocers of Nebraska Cooperative, Inc., sought to recover alleged preferential transfers from trade creditors under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b) and unauthorized post-petition transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 549(a). The bankruptcy court dismissed the preferential transfer claims, ruling that 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(F) unconstitutionally conferred Article III judicial power on non-Article III bankruptcy judges. On appeal and cross-appeal, the district court held that the statute does not violate Article III on these facts because preference actions fall within the core restructuring of debtor-creditor relations traditionally handled by bankruptcy courts, with district court oversight and appellate review providing sufficient checks. The court therefore reversed the dismissal of the first claim, affirmed jurisdiction over the second, and remanded both for merits consideration.

federal powerprocedure

The case involved Crystal Chambers, an unmarried black female employee of the Omaha Girls Club, who was terminated after becoming pregnant under the club's Negative Role Model Policy barring single staff from becoming pregnant or causing pregnancy. Chambers brought claims under Title VII alleging sex and race discrimination in employment. The court ruled for the Girls Club after trial, finding no unlawful discrimination. It reasoned that the policy was justified by business necessity because staff served as role models for young girls in a program focused on preventing teenage pregnancy and maximizing life opportunities, with any disparate impact on black women of childbearing age outweighed by this legitimate operational need.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a plaintiff seeking a court order under the Privacy Act to compel the IRS to expunge all references to him as a 'tax protester' from its records. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). It reasoned that 26 U.S.C. § 7852(e) specifically renders Privacy Act provisions inapplicable to the determination of tax liability or related matters, thereby removing district court jurisdiction. The court also found no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 for mandamus relief or under the First and Fifth Amendments, as the claims lacked factual support or merit.

taxesprocedure

This case involved a physician who provided services under Medicare and Medicaid programs and whose reimbursement payments were suspended by carriers without prior notice or a hearing, based on evidence of potential fraud or overpayment under 42 C.F.R. §§ 405.370 and 405.371(b). The plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction, claiming that the suspension deprived him of property without due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and requesting federal court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The court addressed motions to dismiss, finding no jurisdiction over claims for retroactive relief against the state defendant due to the Eleventh Amendment and limitations under the Medicare Act per Heckler v. Ringer, though it retained jurisdiction over the constitutional due process claim. It concluded that the applicable regulations do not require a hearing during an investigation for fraud, that the plaintiff had not exhausted state administrative remedies, and that temporary suspension without a hearing does not violate due process when based on reliable evidence of fraud and for a reasonable duration.

civil rightsfederal powerhealthcareprocedure

The case involved a Nebraska corporation suing two Georgia residents for federal copyright infringement, alleging that the defendants, as performers, arranged for the publication and marketing of a song called 'PAC MAN FEVER' that copied the plaintiff's copyrighted composition 'PAC MAN'. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court denied the motion, holding that Nebraska's long-arm statute permitted jurisdiction because the defendants' alleged infringing conduct was purposefully directed at the plaintiff in Nebraska, creating foreseeable injury there and satisfying the minimum contacts required by due process. Venue was proper under the federal copyright venue statute because it exists wherever personal jurisdiction can be exercised over the defendants.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Hirt v. UM Leasing Corp., plaintiff sued multiple defendants including Leon Ross and Heritage Sound Recording Distributors alleging securities fraud under the Securities Exchange Act, RICO conspiracy, and related state law claims arising from a 1980 lease of a master sound recording and associated service contracts that failed to deliver promised tax benefits or distribution services, resulting in IRS assessments of over $53,000. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and insufficient particularity in pleading fraud. The court denied the motion in full, holding that the federal securities and RICO statutes authorize nationwide service of process so that minimum contacts analysis does not apply, that the complaint adequately alleged a RICO conspiracy without needing a separate racketeering injury, and that the specified paragraphs satisfied Rules 8 and 9(b) by giving defendants notice of the fraudulent acts claimed against them.

criminal lawbusiness & regulatoryproceduretaxes

The case involves the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska and heirs of original Indian allottees bringing consolidated actions against the United States, the Army Corps of Engineers, the State of Iowa, and private defendants to challenge the validity of a 1972 stipulation waiving rights to contest condemnations of lands on the Missouri River and to quiet title to accretion lands along the Nebraska/Iowa border. The court granted in part the defendants' motion to reconsider the denial of summary judgment, allowing resolution of a substantial number of claims. The core reasoning applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) standards, viewing facts favorably to the plaintiffs, and relied on property law principles that accretion lands pass automatically with conveyances of riparian parcels unless expressly reserved, along with doctrines such as res judicata, collateral estoppel, statutes of limitation, and laches.

propertyfederal powercivil rights

This case involves an appeal by Lincoln Production Credit Association (LPCA) from bankruptcy court orders in the debtors' Chapter 11 proceedings. LPCA held a deed of trust on the Andersons' Nebraska farmland that included an assignment of rents clause and sought to prevent the debtors from using post-petition rental proceeds as cash collateral without adequate protection or segregation. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's ruling that LPCA lacked an enforceable interest because no receiver had been appointed pre-petition, holding instead that an assignment of rents can be activated through corresponding post-petition requests in bankruptcy court under 11 U.S.C. § 363. The court remanded for further proceedings on the cash collateral issues but affirmed the denial of LPCA's motion for a stay, finding insufficient evidence of irreparable harm or undersecured status. The decision relies on federal bankruptcy authority and equitable principles rather than requiring strict pre-petition compliance with state law remedies.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In In re Urbanec, homeowners who defaulted on a mortgage loan secured by their principal residence had the debt accelerated by the lender before filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition proposing to cure the default and resume original monthly payments. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the lender's objection that the plan violated 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) by modifying rights in a home mortgage. On appeal, the District Court reversed, ruling that a Chapter 13 plan may deaccelerate such a mortgage because the statutory power to cure defaults under § 1322(b)(3) and (b)(5) is distinct from prohibited modifications and aligns with the Code's rehabilitative goals, as held by the Second, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.

propertyprocedure

The case originated in Nebraska state court when the City of Alma sued the EPA, state environmental agencies, and two private firms over alleged environmental issues. The United States removed the action to federal court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1442, after which the EPA was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The federal district court later determined on its own motion that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the entire case because removal was improper: the state court had no jurisdiction over claims against the United States, making federal removal jurisdiction derivative and unavailable, and neither diversity nor a federal question existed. The court therefore granted the United States' motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, vacated its prior removal order, and remanded the remaining claims to the District Court of Harlan County, Nebraska.

environmentprocedurefederal power

The case concerned Archbishop Bergan Mercy Hospital's claim for an incentive payment under the Medicare program's TEFRA target amount rules for the 1984 cost year, after the hospital's operating costs fell below its base-year target. The hospital sought a preliminary injunction and summary judgment to require payment of the incentive at the tentative settlement stage rather than waiting for final settlement via the Notice of Program Reimbursement. The court initially dismissed the action on the ground that the Provider Reimbursement Review Board had jurisdiction to resolve the timing issue, but later retained jurisdiction pending exhaustion of administrative remedies. The reasoning centered on the Medicare statute and regulations governing cost reports, tentative and final settlements, and the Secretary's authority to contract with fiscal intermediaries, while binding the defendants to their representations about PRRB authority and potential interest awards.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a products liability lawsuit filed by the personal representative of a decedent's estate against the manufacturer of an oil well auger, alleging negligence, strict liability, and concealment after the product caused the decedent's death in 1982. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by the ten-year statute of repose in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-224(2), as the product had been sold in 1973. The court granted the motion in part, holding that the survival claims were time-barred unless the plaintiff could prove fraudulent concealment estopping the defense, but denied it as to the wrongful death claim. The core reasoning was that both the injury and death occurred within the ten-year period after the product's sale, the suit was filed within the two-year limit under the Nebraska Wrongful Death Act, and that statute's timing provisions were not altered by the products liability repose period.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In this case, Bankers Trust Company filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Gerald Nordbrock based on his nonpayment of a disputed $3 million guarantee obligation related to a bank holding company. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the petition under 11 U.S.C. § 303(h)(1). The court reasoned that a debt subject to a bona fide dispute should not be considered in determining whether the debtor is generally paying his debts as they become due, particularly where it is the only such obligation and a state court action is pending on the claim. The decision emphasized that bankruptcy should not be used by a single creditor to collect an isolated disputed debt.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved multiple defendants charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and related offenses under federal drug laws, following a multi-year investigation by Omaha police and federal agencies that used electronic surveillance. The defendants filed motions to suppress evidence obtained from wiretaps and oral interceptions, arguing that the supporting affidavits failed to establish probable cause or adequately explain why conventional investigative techniques were insufficient. The district court reviewed the magistrate's recommendation de novo and denied the motions, finding that the affidavits detailed extensive prior investigations, specific instances where traditional methods had failed, and sufficient facts to support the necessity and probable cause for the wiretaps under 18 U.S.C. § 2518. The court also rejected challenges to subsequent extension orders and applications, distinguishing them from cases like United States v. Santora.

criminal lawprocedure