William G. Cambridge

The plaintiff sued the IRS, seeking an order that he could not be compelled to sign tax returns or related documents under penalty of perjury on the grounds that doing so would violate his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, along with related relief barring IRS investigations or fines. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss after de novo review, adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation. It held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the United States had not waived its sovereign immunity under the APA or any other statute, and because the Anti-Injunction Act and Declaratory Judgment Act independently barred the requested relief. The court further reasoned that longstanding precedent establishes the Fifth Amendment does not excuse the requirement to sign tax returns, and the plaintiff had other legal remedies available under the tax code.

taxesfederal power

In Glass v. Bemis Co., Inc., an African-American former employee sued her employer alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII based on pay disparities, disciplinary actions, work assignments, and termination, along with a disability discrimination claim tied to a work injury. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims. It reasoned that the initial EEOC charge was time-barred due to failure to sue within 90 days, later charges were filed outside the 90-day window after receiving right-to-sue notices even with mailing extensions, the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies on the disability claim by not amending her EEOC charges, and she provided no evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on pretext or a hostile environment. The decision addressed the merits after deeming the action timely for equitable reasons despite the filing delay.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves Smith Barney and its employee seeking to enjoin a NASD arbitration proceeding initiated by a union pension fund over investment disputes from the 1980s, using Nebraska's Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act in state court. The defendants removed the action to federal court, arguing ERISA preemption created federal jurisdiction, but the magistrate judge granted remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the district judge affirmed on appeal. The court held that federal jurisdiction must appear from the face of a well-pleaded complaint, a federal defense or the underlying ERISA-related claims are insufficient, and complete preemption does not apply here because the petition seeks only state-law relief regarding arbitration enforceability. The decision distinguished cases like Kramer v. Smith Barney where ERISA claims were directly at issue in the state complaint.

procedurebusiness & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved a former school district superintendent who sued the district and its board members, alleging violations of her due process and First Amendment rights, Title IX (20 U.S.C. § 1681), and breach of her employment contract, stemming from events surrounding a Title IX investigation and her termination. The plaintiff had previously signed a settlement agreement that included a release of claims in exchange for payment and resignation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the three federal claims, finding the release valid and binding under Nebraska contract law and that any alleged breach by the defendants was not substantial enough to allow rescission. With no remaining claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law breach-of-contract claim and dismissed the entire action with prejudice.

civil rightsprocedure

This case involves a declaratory judgment action filed by Marianna Imports, Inc. in Nebraska federal court concerning the infringement and validity of a patent held by Helene Curtis, Inc. for a permanent wave hair solution. Helene Curtis had filed an earlier infringement lawsuit against Marianna in Illinois federal court several months prior, though service in that case occurred after Marianna served its declaratory action. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), applying the first-filed rule followed in the Eighth Circuit. The reasoning centered on the absence of compelling circumstances to depart from the rule, noting that the Illinois action was filed first, involved overlapping witnesses and convenience factors favoring Illinois, had already begun discovery, and that both parties' filings were strategic in nature.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Edward Ronwin, who sought to open a securities account with Smith Barney without agreeing to a predispute arbitration clause; after the firm required the clause and returned his funds, Ronwin sued alleging the clause was an unenforceable contract of adhesion, violated the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breached a contract for a cash account, and breached a fiduciary duty. The court dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. It reasoned that adhesion contracts containing arbitration clauses are enforceable absent unconscionability, that Supreme Court precedent upheld such clauses against claims under the securities laws, that any contract was terminable at will with funds returned, and that no facts supported a fiduciary breach. Jurisdiction existed under diversity but did not save the claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a class action lawsuit by inmates at the Nebraska State Penitentiary challenging double-celling practices under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, including risks of violence from cellmates, and a separate claim under the Fourteenth Amendment regarding policies on inmate liability for contraband in shared cells. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after reviewing objections from both sides and the full evidentiary record from an 18-day hearing. It granted judgment for the plaintiffs only on their claim for injunctive relief against prison officials for failing to protect inmates from violent attacks by cellmates, while ruling for the defendants on all other claims, including the broader double-celling challenges and the due process issue. The defendants were given 90 days to submit a remedial plan, with further court proceedings to follow if needed. The decision rested on findings that the evidence supported relief solely for the identified safety deficiency, with qualified immunity applying to other aspects.

civil rightscriminal law

The case involves two school van drivers diagnosed with diabetes mellitus who were transferred to lower-paying van aide positions after new 1986 physical examination requirements, based on federal motor carrier safety regulations, disqualified insulin-using diabetics from driving school vehicles. The plaintiffs sued the school district and Nebraska agencies under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, claiming the transfers constituted discrimination on the basis of their handicap and seeking damages and injunctive relief. The court had previously determined that the plaintiffs qualify as handicapped under the Act but denied earlier summary judgment motions because a factual dispute remained over the existence of reasonable accommodations that would not fundamentally alter the job or impose undue hardship. On the current cross-motions for summary judgment regarding reasonable accommodation, the opinion examines whether the federal regulations' prohibition on insulin-using drivers can be modified for these school van positions without safety risks or operational burdens.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Prochaska & Associates suing Merrill Lynch after purchasing four promissory notes from a Merrill Lynch financial consultant, alleging the notes were fraudulent and worthless. The plaintiff brought claims under federal and state securities laws, RICO, and common law fraud, asserting Merrill Lynch was liable due to the employee's apparent authority and inadequate supervision. The court granted the motion to dismiss the securities law and RICO claims, finding that the notes were not "securities" under the family resemblance test established in Reves v. Ernst & Young because they resembled short-term notes secured by liens on business assets. The court denied the motion to dismiss the common law fraud claim and denied the motion to make the complaint more definite and certain.

business & regulatorycriminal lawtorts & liability

The case involved appeals from bankruptcy court rulings concerning Theodore Olson's liability for a tax penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6672 for unpaid withholding taxes from his manufacturing company during 1980, and whether the United States could enforce a lien based on that assessment against funds from Olson's separate Chapter 11 farming bankruptcy. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's findings that Olson, as president and sole shareholder, was a responsible person who willfully failed to pay the taxes, making him liable for the penalty. However, the court also affirmed that the IRS assessment was void because it occurred while Olson's Chapter 11 case was pending and thus violated the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, rendering any resulting tax lien invalid. The rulings rested on de novo review of legal issues and clearly erroneous review of facts, with no agreement found that would alter the IRS's allocation of payments.

taxesprocedurefederal power

In United States v. King, the United States appealed a bankruptcy court order sustaining Chapter 13 debtors' objection to an IRS claim for unpaid taxes, where the debtors argued that section 6334 of the Internal Revenue Code exempted certain personal property (household goods, tools, clothing, and cash totaling $2,261) from attachment by a federal tax lien. The district court reviewed the matter de novo on the legal issue and reversed the bankruptcy court's ruling, which had relied on an earlier decision later overturned by the Ninth Circuit. The court held that section 6334 exemptions limit only administrative levies, not the attachment of tax liens under the broader language of section 6321, which reaches all of a taxpayer's property and rights to property. It distinguished a lien as a non-possessory security interest from a levy as an immediate seizure and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with that holding.

taxesfederal powerpropertyprocedure

This case involves a trustee appointed under the Packers and Stockyards Act seeking recovery on two surety bonds issued to a livestock auction operator who failed to pay sellers due to insolvency and misuse of a required custodial account. The court granted the plaintiff's motions for summary judgment and denied the defendant's, awarding the full $65,000 on the Clause 1 bond and $45,000 on the Clause 2 bond, plus prejudgment interest and fees and costs. The decision rested on undisputed facts establishing the operator's regulatory violations and the bonds' coverage of the unpaid claims from consigned livestock sales, with the defendant conceding liability on one bond.

business & regulatory

In this bankruptcy appeal, debtors David and Diane Nuttleman claimed proceeds from a pension plan as exempt under Nebraska statutes, prompting the trustee to object on grounds that ERISA preempted those exemptions. The bankruptcy court overruled the objection after finding it timely filed under Bankruptcy Rule 4003 via relation back and that the state exemptions were not preempted. On cross-appeals, the district court reversed the timeliness ruling, holding that the trustee's second objection could not relate back to the first (which had been denied for lack of service) and was therefore barred as untimely, but affirmed the ultimate decision to overrule the objection on that procedural basis without reaching the preemption issue.

procedure

In United States v. Merrick, a member of the Omaha Tribe of Indians who had pleaded guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon under federal law sought to vacate his conviction and sentence through a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He argued that the federal court lacked jurisdiction because the offense occurred on Indian territory. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny the motion, finding that Nebraska's retrocession of jurisdiction to the federal government was valid and effective under established Eighth Circuit precedent such as Walker v. Rushing. As a result, the court held that it had proper jurisdiction over the case and dismissed the defendant's claim.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case involved an appeal by the United States Trustee from a bankruptcy court order authorizing periodic payments to accountants retained by the debtor-in-possession, Dandy Lion Inns of America, with quarterly fee applications and notice only after payments had been made. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's order and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The court held that while 11 U.S.C. § 328 permits court approval of professional compensation arrangements including retainers, this must be reconciled with the requirements of §§ 330 and 331 that professionals apply for compensation after notice and a hearing before any allowance or disbursement. It reasoned that interim payment procedures without prior approval are permissible only in limited circumstances, such as unusually large cases with demonstrated hardship, and that the bankruptcy court failed to apply such limiting factors from In re Knudsen Corp.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court's orders in a Chapter 11 proceeding filed by farm operators who had leased agricultural equipment prior to bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court determined that the agreement was a true lease rather than a financing arrangement, deemed the lease rejected as of the evidentiary hearing date, and awarded the lessor an administrative expense claim for the equipment's use value. On appeal, the district court affirmed the finding that the agreement was a true lease based on its terms, the parties' conduct, and the purchase option at fair market value, but reversed the administrative expense award. The court reasoned that the debtors had not actually used the equipment post-petition and that 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A) provides no basis for allowing such an expense as a penalty for delay in assuming or rejecting the lease. The motion for rehearing was denied on similar grounds.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This ERISA case concerned Patricia Sweeney's claim for coverage under her employer-sponsored Gerber Products Company Medical Benefits Plan for high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplantation to treat her metastatic breast cancer. Prudential, the plan's claims fiduciary, denied pre-certification because the treatment was experimental, investigational, and not commonly and customarily recognized as appropriate in the medical profession. Applying the arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review because the plan granted discretionary authority to the fiduciary, the court upheld the denial after reviewing medical literature, protocols, and expert opinions showing the procedure remained in phase II trials with varying experimental regimens. The court concluded that even a de novo review would reach the same result given the plan's explicit exclusion of experimental services.

healthcarelabor & employmentfederal power

This case involves a plaintiff's challenge to the denial of disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The court reviewed the magistrate's recommendation to affirm the Secretary's decision and adopted it after de novo review of the objections. The court found that the administrative law judge properly considered the combined effects of the plaintiff's multiple impairments as required by law and that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that these impairments did not prevent the plaintiff from engaging in light labor. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiff's subjective complaints and supporting testimony were inconsistent with the overall record under the applicable credibility standards, justifying the denial of benefits.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

The case involved a dispute over whether a debtor in Chapter 7 bankruptcy could exempt $4,200 worth of growing crops as "provisions" necessary for six months' support under Nebraska law. The Bankruptcy Court allowed the exemption, but the District Court reversed that decision. The court reasoned that the statutory term "provisions" refers to supplies of food that can be consumed, not crops grown for sale, based on the plain meaning of the word and the legislative history separating livestock exemptions. Therefore, growing crops could not be claimed as exempt under that provision.

propertyprocedure

The case involved a defendant, a foreign national in Alabama state custody on a state conviction, who was indicted in federal court on charges of bank fraud and fraudulent use of a social security number. After the federal government lodged a detainer, the defendant made a timely demand for speedy trial under Article III of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, but the government did not secure his appearance or try him within the required 180 days despite receiving notice and related correspondence. The magistrate recommended dismissal of the indictment for violation of the Agreement's timeline, though without prejudice under 1988 amendments, and the district court adopted those findings and recommendations in full, granting the motion to dismiss and terminating the case. The core reasoning was that the government's use of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum instead of the Agreement's procedures did not excuse its failure to meet the statutory deadline, and no showing of prejudice was required for dismissal in this direct challenge.

criminal lawprocedure