The case involved Josephine Upah suing her brothers and their family company for civil conspiracy, alleging they deprived her of stock ownership through unauthorized stock issuances that violated preemptive rights, failure to register inherited shares, improper cancellation of gifted shares, and related acts dating back to the 1960s. A jury awarded her $3.766 million, but on appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the judgment in most respects. The court reasoned that the claims were facially barred by the statute of limitations, that the plaintiff had not shown fraudulent concealment sufficient to toll the limitations period except in limited instances involving fiduciary duties by two brothers as trustees, and that the remaining claims against Carl Ancona and the company should be dismissed.
This case concerns the plaintiff's efforts to enforce a $3,766,000 judgment against the individual and corporate defendants through orders in aid of execution, targeting distributions from a company profit-sharing plan and evidences of indebtedness owed by the company. After the underlying judgment was reversed on appeal and remanded in part, the district court had directed that any such distributions be applied to satisfy the judgment and had enjoined the defendants from transferring the assets. The defendants appealed those enforcement orders. The court reversed and vacated the orders, reasoning that ancillary or accessory orders dependent on a reversed judgment must fall with it.
The case involved a marina company that leased commercial property from Ramey under a lease with options to renew for additional terms, requiring written notice by a specific deadline. The marina missed the deadline due to an alleged honest mistake and sought to compel extension of the lease through an equity action, arguing that strict enforcement would cause unconscionable harm given the improvements made to the property. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the petition, holding that renewal options must be exercised strictly in accordance with their terms and that equity will not relieve against mere forgetfulness in such cases.
The case involved an association of depositors who lost money from the 1983 failure of Commonwealth Savings Company suing former directors of the Nebraska Depository Institution Guaranty Corporation (NDIGC) and others for wrongful conduct that allegedly caused NDIGC's 1985 collapse and prevented recovery on deposit guarantees. The plaintiffs filed their petition in December 1988, more than four years after the events. The district court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the action as barred by the four-year statute of limitations in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-207(3) and (4). The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the claims accrued no later than November 1983 when Commonwealth was declared insolvent and a receiver appointed, and that the petition could not be amended to allege later discovery because public records from related 1984 proceedings showed the alleged fraud was known or discoverable well before December 1984.
In Duggan v. Beermann, a voter challenged the placement of a term-limits initiative (Measure #407) on the 1992 Nebraska ballot, arguing that the petition lacked the required number of signatures under the state constitution, among other claims. The district court denied relief and allowed the measure on the ballot, where it passed. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the number of signatures submitted fell short of the constitutional threshold—whether measured by registered voters or votes cast in the prior gubernatorial election—and did not constitute substantial compliance with the procedural requirements of Neb. Const. art. III, §§ 2 and 4. The court therefore reversed the district court, declared the measure void despite voter approval, and remanded for entry of judgment accordingly.
This case involves a long-running dispute in which Whitehead Oil challenged the City of Lincoln's denial of a use permit to develop its property as a convenience store under a zoning ordinance, claiming the denial was arbitrary and seeking to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance along with damages. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rulings that the ordinance was unreasonable and unenforceable, that the denial effected a temporary taking of property under the Fifth Amendment (incorporated via the Fourteenth) and the Nebraska Constitution, and that the city had violated Whitehead Oil's civil rights. The court awarded damages measured by the diminished rental value of the property ($762.50 per month) from the date of denial until the permit issues, reflecting the difference between retail use under B-2 zoning and office use under O-3 zoning. The decision rests on prior holdings in the same controversy that the permit refusal was arbitrary and capricious, as well as principles of inverse condemnation and equitable jurisdiction to resolve all related claims. The decree was modified only to extend damages accrual until the permit is actually issued.