Lyle Elmer Strom

This case involves Patrick R. Allen's application for Social Security disability insurance benefits, which the Commissioner denied after finding he was not disabled from his alleged onset date of February 1, 2000, through his date last insured of September 30, 2005. The court reviewed the administrative decision under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and determined that it was not supported by substantial evidence. The court remanded the case, noting issues such as the ALJ's failure to properly evaluate whether substance use was a contributing factor to any disability and potential effects of incarceration on eligibility. The reasoning centered on the need for the ALJ to address these factors in the five-step disability analysis.

federal powerhealthcare

The case involved parents suing their son's life insurer under ERISA after the denial of accidental death benefits for a fatal single-vehicle crash. The insurer had refused payment on the ground that a blood alcohol level of 0.172 percent rendered the death foreseeable and therefore not an "accident" within the policy terms. On cross-motions for summary judgment the court granted each motion in part and denied each in part. It first held that ERISA preempted the state-law claims for breach of contract, bad faith, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, leaving only the ERISA claim. The court then reviewed the denial under the arbitrary-and-capricious standard applicable to the plan's grant of discretionary authority and concluded that further proceedings were required on the ERISA benefits issue.

labor & employmentfederal powerprocedurebusiness & regulatory

Mary Clark sued Brumbaugh and Quandahl, P.C. (B&Q) and Capital One for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, claiming improper attempts to collect on a credit card debt after she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Capital One settled, leaving B&Q as the remaining defendant. The court denied Clark's summary judgment motion and granted B&Q's, holding that B&Q qualified for the bona fide error defense because the bankruptcy suggestions it received did not reference the Capital One account and B&Q followed its standard procedures for closing files upon actual notice of bankruptcy. The court also sustained Clark's objection to B&Q's bill of costs, declining to find bad faith.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In Keating v. Nebraska Public Power District, downstream water appropriators sued the Nebraska Public Power District and the Department of Natural Resources over the administration of surface water permits on the Niobrara River, claiming a violation of procedural due process rights when upstream junior appropriators continued diverting water during periods of scarcity without adequate process or compensation. The case reached the district court on remand from the Eighth Circuit solely on the due process claim. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motions, holding that DNR's regulatory actions in issuing closing notices and managing calls did not deprive the plaintiffs of a protected property interest in their appropriation permits.

environmentpropertyprocedure

This case arose from a 2003 boat accident in the Cayman Islands that injured a passenger, leading to a $3.9 million judgment against the boat owner (plaintiff Graske) after the insurer (defendant Auto-Owners) declined to settle within policy limits; plaintiffs then sued the insurer for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty based on alleged failures to investigate and settle. The court addressed three motions: the defendant's motion to compel discovery responses, the plaintiffs' motion to compel more detailed responses to interrogatories and document requests, and the defendant's motion for leave to file a second amended answer asserting an affirmative defense. The court granted the motions to compel in part and denied them in part, ordering supplemental responses to specific interrogatories and document requests by August 21, 2009, because some privilege objections lacked merit or were waived while others were valid, and because Rule 33(d) responses to interrogatories via document production required sufficient specificity to allow the requesting party to locate responsive materials. The court denied the motion to amend because good-faith reliance on counsel's advice does not constitute an affirmative defense in this context.

proceduretorts & liability

This case involves a dispute between two nonprofit organizations, WWP, Inc. and Wounded Warriors, Inc., both providing services to injured veterans, over the use of similar names and web addresses. WWP sued for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, unfair competition, and violations of the Nebraska Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NDTPA), seeking a preliminary injunction to stop Wounded Warriors from using the domain woundedwarriors.org and related marks. The court denied the injunction on the trademark and unfair competition claims, finding WWP unlikely to succeed on the merits because it had disclaimed exclusive rights to the phrase 'wounded warrior project' apart from its registered logo. However, the court granted a limited injunction on the NDTPA claim, ordering Wounded Warriors to cease using its current domain until trial and to include disclaimers on other sites to reduce donor confusion. The decision rested on the Dataphase factors for preliminary relief, emphasizing the probability of success on the merits alongside irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a contract dispute between Affiliated Foods Midwest Cooperative, a grocery wholesale cooperative, and Integrated Distribution Solutions, LLC (succeeded by Retalix), over software components and support services provided under a 2004 customer agreement. Affiliated Foods sued in state court alleging breach of contract, breach of warranties, and misrepresentation, after which the case was removed to federal court. IDS moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act based on a clause in the agreement requiring binding arbitration in Omaha for disputes (except those seeking injunctive relief). The court granted the motion to compel, finding a valid arbitration agreement whose scope covered the claims, rejecting arguments of waiver through litigation conduct and invalidity under Nebraska law due to FAA preemption, and reserving ruling on other pending motions such as Retalix's motion to dismiss.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves cross-motions for summary judgment on whether U.S. Patent No. 6,951,189, covering a hay saver insert for cylindrical bale feeders, is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution. Plymouth Industries sought a ruling of no inequitable conduct, while Sioux Steel sought a ruling of unenforceability based on alleged failures to disclose prior art, such as the Hay-Mizer Feeder and related sales or publications. The court denied Plymouth's motion in full and granted Sioux Steel's motion in part and denied it in part, applying Federal Circuit standards for summary judgment on inequitable conduct, which require clear evidence of materiality and intent to deceive without genuine issues of material fact. The opinion reviews the patent prosecution history, including continuation applications and terminal disclaimers, and evaluates the duty to disclose under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This product liability case involved plaintiffs Susan Grant and Rex Beck alleging that Grant's use of the defendants' black cohosh herbal supplement caused her autoimmune hepatitis diagnosis and subsequent liver transplant. The court considered motions to exclude expert testimony from toxicologist Dr. Corbett and treating physician Dr. Sorrell, as well as motions for summary judgment. It excluded Dr. Corbett's testimony entirely and Dr. Sorrell's testimony on specific causation because neither met Daubert standards for reliability, including lack of adequate methodology, failure to account for other potential causes like medications, and insufficient basis for general or specific causation in this toxicology matter. Without admissible expert evidence on causation, which Nebraska law requires for such complex claims, the plaintiffs could not establish a prima facie case, leading the court to grant summary judgment for the defendants and dismiss the complaint.

torts & liabilityprocedure

OBH, Inc. (formerly Berkshire Hathaway) filed consolidated tax refund suits seeking approximately $16 million plus interest for the 1989-1991 tax years, claiming the IRS erroneously applied 26 U.S.C. § 246A to reduce its dividends-received deduction. The IRS had traced portions of four debt transactions (including debentures and a zero-coupon bond) to purchases of dividend-paying stocks by Berkshire's insurance subsidiary NICO, asserting that the borrowings constituted portfolio indebtedness requiring a reduced deduction. After a bench trial, the court reviewed the presumption of correctness afforded to IRS assessments and placed the burden on the taxpayer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arbitrary or erroneous. The opinion details findings on Berkshire's capital allocation practices under Warren Buffett and the disposition of loan proceeds into NICO's operations, while noting statutory exceptions and tracing requirements under § 246A.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

The case involved a dispute between National Loan Investors, L.P. and The Western Sugar Company, where National Loan filed a complaint in federal court alleging diversity jurisdiction based on an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. The court determined that complete diversity was lacking because both parties were citizens of Colorado, as National Loan had a limited partner residing in Colorado, thus depriving the court of subject matter jurisdiction and requiring dismissal. The court granted National Loan's motion to dismiss without prejudice. It also granted Western Sugar's motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, finding that National Loan and its attorney knew or should have known of the jurisdictional defect from the outset yet resisted discovery and proceeded with the action, and awarded Western Sugar $5,625 in attorney's fees as a sanction.

procedure

In United States v. Cotton, defendant Kevin L. Cotton moved to dismiss the indictment or suppress evidence obtained from a December 24, 2001 traffic stop on Highway 6 in Nebraska, arguing that the stop, search, and subsequent questioning violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The magistrate judge recommended, and the district court adopted, denying the motion to dismiss and denying suppression of physical evidence because the trooper had probable cause for the stop based on observed equipment violations (oversized tires without mud flaps and a broken brake light) and the investigation did not exceed Fourth Amendment limits. However, the court granted suppression in part, ruling that statements made by Cotton after he was handcuffed were the product of custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings and thus inadmissible under the Fifth Amendment, while pre-handcuffing statements were voluntary and admissible. The trial was set for August 26, 2002, with excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves defendant Joseph Abboud's amended motion to dismiss Counts 1, 36, and 54-62 of a superseding indictment in Nebraska federal court. Abboud argued that the charges violated the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause based on his prior guilty plea in Georgia to felony and misdemeanor counts of unauthorized reception of cable television services under 42 U.S.C. § 553, and that the indictment breached the Georgia plea agreement. After several days of evidentiary hearings, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending denial of the motion, concluding that the facts and law did not support double jeopardy or breach claims. Following a de novo review of the transcripts, briefs, objections, and report, the district court adopted the magistrate's findings and recommendation in full, denying the motion to dismiss.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves federal criminal charges against multiple defendants for mail and wire fraud arising from the sale of cable converter/descrambler devices that enabled customers to receive premium channels without paying cable providers. The district court considered objections to a magistrate judge's report recommending dismissal of portions of the superseding indictment on grounds that it failed to allege all required elements. The court rejected the recommendation and denied the motions to dismiss, ruling that the indictment sufficiently set forth the elements of mail and wire fraud, including a scheme to defraud involving material misrepresentations or omissions, intent, and use of interstate mail or wires to obtain money or property. The core reasoning applied established standards that an indictment need only contain the essential elements, fairly inform defendants of the charges, and provide enough detail to bar future prosecutions, without requiring hyper-technical construction or additional factual proof at the pleading stage.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a former assistant professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln who sued the Board of Regents under Title VII, claiming a hostile work environment from sexual harassment by students and colleagues, retaliation for filing EEOC charges, and constructive discharge after her resignation. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that most harassment claims were time-barred under the 300-day EEOC filing deadline, that no evidence supported retaliation or a continuing violation, and that the plaintiff failed to show the university deliberately made conditions intolerable to force her resignation. The court also denied the plaintiff's sanctions motion regarding destroyed documents as moot after resolving the summary judgment issues.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves a breach of contract claim by Entergy Services and Entergy Arkansas against Union Pacific Railroad for failing to deliver coal under transportation agreements, with Entergy later adding a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment. Union Pacific moved to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim, arguing that the Surface Transportation Board has exclusive or primary jurisdiction over the matter. The court denied the motion, holding that the claim falls within the court's jurisdiction because the Surface Transportation Board lacks authority over breach of rail transportation contracts, and referral under primary jurisdiction is inappropriate as no national transportation policy issues are implicated.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a breach of contract action brought by Entergy Services and Entergy Arkansas against Union Pacific Railroad arising from long-term Rail Transportation Agreements under which UP was to haul low-sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin to Entergy’s Arkansas power plants. Entergy sought liquidated damages, actual damages, and cancellation of the contract for alleged failures to meet specified transit times, while UP moved for summary judgment asserting that the contract’s liquidated-damages formula was the exclusive remedy. The court, applying Arkansas law, examined the contract language and undisputed facts to determine whether UP had breached its delivery obligations and whether the agreed remedy provision precluded other relief, deferring issues of good faith and damages calculations to later phases of the litigation.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is an estate tax refund suit brought by the Estate of Robert F. Lute II against the United States. The central question is whether a renunciation executed by the decedent's father of his intestate share qualified as a disclaimer under 26 U.S.C. § 2518, which would allow the entire estate to pass to the surviving spouse and qualify for the marital deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 2056(a). After a bench trial, the court held that the renunciation satisfied the statutory requirements, including that the father had not accepted any benefits of the interest beforehand, and that the property therefore passed directly from the decedent to his spouse. The court also found the government's position on the disclaimer issue (and related tax credits) was not substantially justified, denied the government's motion to alter the judgment, and directed briefing on the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees and costs.

taxesfamily lawprocedure

In this case, the United States appealed a bankruptcy court's ruling that reclassified the IRS's claim for unpaid 1986 income taxes from priority to general unsecured status in the debtors' Chapter 13 proceeding. The debtors had admitted filing a fraudulent 1986 return by omitting embezzlement income, and the bankruptcy court determined under 11 U.S.C. §§ 507(a)(8)(A)(iii) and 523(a)(1)(C) that taxes involving a fraudulent return or willful evasion do not qualify as priority claims. The district court affirmed, holding that the debtors' admissions established fraud without need for additional evidence and that a claim could be reconsidered for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 502(j) even after plan confirmation, contrary to the government's arguments based on §§ 1327(a) and 1329(a). The court reviewed the bankruptcy court's legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error, finding no error in the reclassification.

taxesprocedure

In Karstens v. International Gamco, Inc., the plaintiff alleged she experienced sexual harassment from a coworker during a work trip, complained to management, and was fired in retaliation, asserting claims under Title VII for harassment and retaliation, a parallel Nebraska statute, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On the defendants' motions to dismiss, the court held that the plaintiff had exhausted administrative remedies for the harassment claim via her EEOC filing, that the individual defendant could not face personal liability under Title VII or the state law, that supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims was proper, and that the emotional distress allegations were adequate against the corporate defendants. The decision applied precedents on EEOC charge scope, limits on individual liability, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 factors, and pleading standards under Rule 12(b).

civil rightslabor & employmentproceduretorts & liability