Robert Vernon Denney

In Ramirez v. City of Omaha, two Mexican-American men sued the City of Omaha alleging national origin discrimination in the firefighter hiring process under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and Title VII, specifically challenging their rejection based on statements made during polygraph examinations as well as the overall selection criteria including written tests, physical exams, interviews, and background reviews. The district court, after a bench trial, entered judgment for the defendants and found no unlawful discrimination. The core reasoning rested on undisputed facts about the multi-stage process and applicant flow statistics from the 1976-1978 eligible list, which showed Hispanic candidates were referred and hired at rates comparable to or higher than non-Hispanics, with no evidence of disparate impact or treatment under prevailing Title VII standards.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a South Dakota corporation suing its former Nebraska sales representative to enforce noncompetition and secrecy clauses in an employment contract after the employee left to join a competitor. The defendant moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending the noncompetition provisions were invalid under South Dakota statute referenced in the contract. The court denied the motion, holding that Nebraska law controls because the contract was executed and to be performed in Nebraska, where such agreements are generally enforceable absent violation of public policy, and scheduled a hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This tax refund case involved plaintiffs David and his wife Kavich seeking recovery of additional federal income taxes assessed and paid for tax years 1969 through 1972 after the IRS disallowed claimed deductions. The deductions at issue primarily concerned payments on personal guarantees David Kavich had made for debts of National Carpets, Inc. (a corporation in which he held a one-third ownership interest), along with related legal fees, payroll taxes, and loans connected to that company. The court held that the taxpayers were not entitled to business bad debt deductions under IRC § 166 because the guarantees were not created in the course of Kavich's trade or business (his separate furniture store) but instead related to his investment in the undercapitalized corporation, and any claimed collateral business benefits did not establish the required proximate relationship at the time the guarantees were extended. The court therefore upheld the disallowance of the refund claims.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case involved a claim by Willie L. Metcalf, a black employee at Omaha Steel Castings Co., that the company violated Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by terminating him because of his race after he left his shift early without permission due to illness. Following a bench trial, the court found that Metcalf had established a prima facie case of discrimination but that the employer had articulated and proven a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the discharge—walking off the job without permission—and that Metcalf had not shown this reason was pretextual. The court also determined that statistical evidence regarding workforce composition was inconclusive and therefore dismissed the complaint. Prior administrative findings and an arbitration ruling had similarly upheld the termination as justified.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Parker v. Parratt, petitioners Willis Parker and Armstead Pierce sought federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after their joint state-court convictions for kidnapping and rape, arguing that their shared court-appointed counsel created a conflict of interest that denied them effective assistance under the Sixth Amendment. The court applied the standard from Cuyler v. Sullivan, finding that the co-defendants' positions were sufficiently different—particularly regarding evidence of consent and injuries inflicted—that counsel's joint representation created an actual conflict. It determined that Pierce was adversely affected by the conflict because his more credible consent defense could not be fully pursued without harming Parker's case, while the effect on Parker was de minimis. Accordingly, the court granted habeas relief to Pierce but denied it to Parker.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case is an interpleader action over the proceeds of a Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance policy issued to Terrence Alan Dulek, with the former wife Bonnie Lynn Dulek and the insured’s parents as competing claimants. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on the sole issue of whether Bonnie was the lawful spouse at the time of the insured’s death. Under 38 U.S.C. § 770(a), federal law distributes such proceeds first to a designated beneficiary, then to the widow or widower, and only then to parents. The court determined that the April 20, 1979, divorce decree from Sarpy County, Nebraska, expressly provided that it would not become final until six months after entry, and the insured died on May 28, 1979, before that period elapsed; therefore Bonnie remained the lawful spouse and took priority as widow. The separation agreement and other facts did not alter this outcome under the federal statutory order of distribution.

family lawfederal power

This case is an employment discrimination lawsuit brought by plaintiff Farrakhan against Sears, Roebuck & Co. under Title VII and Section 1981, alleging racial discrimination in employment decisions, particularly the denial of enrollment in a management training program. After a bench trial, the court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that any actions were motivated by race. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, determining that Sears articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its decisions based on qualifications and performance, which the plaintiff did not show to be pretextual.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involved a bankruptcy trustee seeking to recover loan payments made by the bankrupt company, National Auto Supply, Inc., to the defendant bank, claiming they were fraudulent conveyances under § 67(d)(2)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act because the payments satisfied debts nominally owed by a related but separate corporation, National Auto Centers, Inc. After a non-jury trial, the court held that the payments were not fraudulent because the bankrupt received fair consideration. The court reasoned that the two corporations had a complete identity of interest—they shared officers and shareholders, the bankrupt received all loan proceeds and made all payments, and National Auto Centers conducted no independent business—warranting treatment as a single entity. Alternatively, the court found fair consideration based on the indirect benefit to the bankrupt, as it had used the loan funds and could have been liable to the bank under Nebraska quasi-contract principles for unjust enrichment.

business & regulatory

This case concerned Calvert Fire Insurance Company and Central National Insurance Company seeking rescission of multiple reinsurance treaties with Unigard Mutual Insurance Company, based on claims that Unigard made false representations about its excess and special risks program through an intermediary to induce the agreements and that Unigard failed to provide timely and accurate reports as required by the contracts. The court reviewed the background of Unigard's arrangement with managing agent Allen, Miller & Associates, the placement of the treaties, and the parties' performance until termination in 1974, along with Unigard's defenses including statute of limitations, waiver, and ratification. The court applied principles from Nebraska case law holding that rescission is available where representations about existing facts are made as positive statements without knowledge of their truth, even absent proof of knowing falsity, and proceeded to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on the misrepresentation and breach claims.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case concerns whether Great American Insurance must defend and indemnify Paxton & Vierling Steel (PVS) under a liability policy after PVS's wholly-owned subsidiary OE&E merged into PVS, in connection with wrongful-death suits arising from a 1972 crane accident. The court granted PVS's motion for summary judgment and denied the insurer's cross-motion, holding that the Nebraska Business Corporation Act's merger provisions automatically transferred all rights under the policy—including OE&E's coverage—to the surviving corporation PVS. The policy's non-assignability clause did not block this statutory succession, and the insurer's prior defense of the parties did not alter the coverage analysis at this stage. The court awarded PVS attorney fees under Nebraska statute but deferred the amount determination.

business & regulatory

This case involved a tax refund claim by James W. King and his wife for their 1973 federal income taxes, which had been withheld from wages. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claim. The core reasoning was that under Internal Revenue Code sections 6511 and 7502, the taxes were deemed paid on April 15, 1974, but the 1973 return (treated as the refund claim) was not received until April 20, 1977, exceeding the three-year limit, and the timely mailing rule did not apply because filing occurred after the original due date. The court also held it lacked jurisdiction over an additional refund amount because no prior administrative claim had been filed.

taxes

In Beasley v. Union Pacific Railroad, plaintiffs filed suit in Nebraska state court alleging that a 31-day disciplinary suspension violated the Railway Labor Act as well as provisions of the Nebraska Constitution and statutes; the railroad removed the case to federal district court and later moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs then sought remand to state court or, alternatively, abstention on the state-law claims. The court denied the motion for remand, holding that the action arose under a federal statute regulating commerce and was therefore removable without regard to diversity or amount in controversy, and that the railroad's preliminary actions in state court did not waive its removal right. The court also denied abstention, reasoning that preemption questions should first be resolved on the pending summary-judgment motion and that splitting the claims would cause undesirable piecemeal litigation.

labor & employmentprocedurefederal power

This case arose after a mentally ill man purchased a shotgun from Sears and used it to kill Dennis Lipari and injure his wife in a nightclub shooting; the plaintiffs sued Sears for negligent sale of the firearm, and both Sears (via third-party complaint) and the plaintiffs sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act alleging negligence by the Veterans Administration in its psychiatric treatment and failure to detain or commit the shooter. The United States moved to dismiss the claims against it. The court denied the motion, holding that Nebraska law would impose a duty on mental health professionals to take reasonable steps to protect foreseeable victims when they know or should know of a patient's dangerousness, that the discretionary function exception did not bar the claims because the allegations concerned professional judgment rather than policy decisions, and that the complaints adequately stated claims for contribution or indemnity.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

The case Monahan v. State of Neb. concerns whether Nebraska's procedures under L.B. 871 for due process hearings on educational placements for handicapped children comply with the federal Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, particularly the requirement for impartial hearings without review by the Commissioner of Education. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to appoint impartial hearing officers without state review. The court denied relief to plaintiff Monahan due to lack of demonstrated irreparable harm but granted it to plaintiff Rose, ordering the appointment of an impartial hearing officer whose decision the Commissioner must implement without modification, based on sufficient questions about the Nebraska law's impartiality and evidence of irreparable educational harm.

civil rightsfederal powerprocedure

This case involved a plaintiff's claim under the Truth-in-Lending Act and Regulation Z against a rental company over an agreement for a television that allowed ownership after 78 weekly payments of $21. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending the agreement did not qualify as a covered transaction. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, concluding the agreement was neither a "credit sale" under 15 U.S.C. § 1602(g) nor a "consumer lease" under 15 U.S.C. § 1667(1) because the renter was obligated only for a single week and could terminate at any time without paying a sum substantially equivalent to the property's value or for a period exceeding four months. The decision rested on the statutory definitions, the agreement's termination clause, and supporting interpretations from the Federal Reserve Board and other courts.

business & regulatory

This case was a lawsuit by union-sponsored health and welfare trust funds against a construction company to recover allegedly unpaid contributions under a 1975 pre-hire collective bargaining agreement permitted by section 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending the agreement was unenforceable because the union had never achieved majority support among its employees. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Iron Workers Local 103, which established that section 8(f) pre-hire agreements are voidable at the employer's option if the union never attains majority status. The undisputed facts confirmed the union lacked majority representation, so the agreement could not be enforced.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case is a diversity action in which children sued Sears, Roebuck & Co. for damages arising from nonfatal injuries to their parents. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that Nebraska law does not recognize a child's cause of action for loss of parental consortium in nonfatal injury cases. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that no such cause of action exists under Nebraska law. The ruling rested on policy considerations including the non-pecuniary and non-compensable nature of the loss, the social costs of expanded liability such as higher insurance premiums and multiplied litigation, the risk of double recovery, and the majority rule among other jurisdictions denying recovery, while distinguishing the situation from wrongful death cases where recovery for loss of parental consortium is permitted.

torts & liability

This case involves a dispute between Creighton-Omaha, a mortgagor, and Lomas, a mortgagee, over whether the mortgagor is entitled to share in profits Lomas realized by paying FHA mortgage insurance premiums with debentures purchased at a discount. After negotiations failed, Lomas filed a declaratory judgment action in Texas concerning funds deposited there, and Creighton-Omaha then sued in Nebraska; Lomas moved to stay the Nebraska action pending resolution of the Texas suit. The court denied the stay, holding that the Texas filing was anticipatory, the Texas forum had only minimal connection to the controversy, jurisdiction there was uncertain, and the balance of equities favored allowing the Nebraska action to proceed in the forum chosen by the plaintiff.

procedureproperty

This case involved Fin & Feather Sport Shop, Inc., a firearms dealer, seeking review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' denial of its federal firearms license renewal application under the Gun Control Act of 1968. The plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction, while the defendants moved for summary judgment based on the administrative record showing repeated recordkeeping violations. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, upholding the denial. The core reasoning was that the company had committed numerous willful violations of recordkeeping requirements over several years, despite multiple inspections, warnings, and assurances of correction, which justified license denial under the Act; no genuine issues of material fact existed to preclude summary judgment.

gunsbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns a dispute over pension contributions to the United Furniture Workers Pension Fund A, an ERISA-governed plan, where employer Mastercraft Furniture and employee John Talarico sought to require the Fund to accept contributions only for employees who had reached age 25 and completed one year of service, per the terms of their collective bargaining agreement with the union. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the Fund from rejecting contributions made on that basis, arguing the Fund was bound by the agreement, that its trustees acted arbitrarily in refusing, and that estoppel applied due to prior acceptance of payments. The court denied the motion after a hearing, holding that the Fund was not a party to the collective bargaining agreement and thus not obligated to follow its eligibility terms, that the trustees' consistent policy against age exclusions was reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious, and that no estoppel arose because the Fund lacked knowledge of the exclusionary practice until recently. The court further found insufficient evidence of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs or that hardships tipped in their favor compared to risks to the Fund's administration and soundness.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory