Justia Business Law Opinion Summaries

Thomas & Thomas Court Reporters sued Douglas Switzer, an attorney, and his law firm, Hathaway & Switzer (Hathaway Switzer), for failure to pay for court reporting services. The district court entered judgment for Thomas & Thomas. At issue on appeal was whether Hathaway Switzer was liable to Thomas & Thomas for its fees or whether Hathaway Switzer's clients were. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the district court's judgment to the extent that it held Hathaway Switzer rather than Hathaway Switzer's clients liable, as Hathaway Switzer had not disclaimed liability for those fees; and (2) reversed the court's judgment to the extent that it held Switzer personally liable. Remanded with directions to dismiss Thomas & Thomas' claim against Switzer as an individual.

Appellant Tymar, LLC filed an application with the Nebraska Public Service Commission seeking authority to operate as a common carrier of household goods in intrastate commerce. Appellees, other common carriers in the area, filed protests to Tymar's application. After a hearing, the Commission denied the application, determining that Tymar had failed to establish its prima facie case that it met the standards for approval of its application under the regulatory scheme imposed by Neb. Rev. Stat. 75-301. The district court affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether requests for admissions Tymar tendered to Appellees but which Appellees did not answer should have been deemed admitted under Neb. R. Civ. P. R. 36. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commission erred when it did not give legal effect to the substance of the unanswered requests, and the district court erred as a matter of law when it failed to correct the Commission's rulings regarding these requests for admissions. Remanded with directions to reconsider Tymar's application.

Plaintiff Darlene Howsden was injured on premises that were leased to her employer by a legally distinct entity that was owned and operated by the same shareholders as her employer. Plaintiff sued Defendant, the entity that owned the premises, for negligence. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant, concluding that Plaintiff's exclusive remedy was under the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in concluding that the exclusive remedy rule extended to Defendant because (1) Defendant was a legally separate entity from Plaintiff's employer, despite their corporate kinship, and there was no equitable basis to justify piercing the corporate veil between the two entities; and (2) therefore, Defendant was a third party to the employment relationship between Plaintiff and her employer, so Plaintiff's third-party claim against Defendant was not barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Act.

These two consolidated appeals arose from actions taken by American National Bank (ANB) to execute on a judgment against Michael Medved, an Arizona resident with business interests in Nebraska. Medved's wife, Laura, unsuccessfully sought to intervene in an action ANB filed against Medved in the district court for Douglas County. The district court denied her motion and issued charging orders against Medved's transferable interest in three Nebraska limited liability companies. Laura also unsuccessfully sought to intervene in an action filed in the district court for Sarpy County. The Sarpy County action resulted in a garnishment of Medved's wages. Medved appealed and Laura cross-appealed, arguing that the Nebraska order violated their rights under Arizona community property law because the earnings and distributions from the limited liability companies were Medved and Laura's community property and were protected by Arizona law. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that under either Arizona or Nebraska law, there was no error in the enforcement of the judgment.

Joseph (Joe) Mandolfo sued his brother Mario and American National Bank (ANB). At one time, Joe owned several businesses, some of which had accounts with ANB. After his brother Mario lost his job as a teacher, Joe hired Mario to work for him. Joe alleged that Mario had, with the help of ANB, wrongfully deposited checks intended for Joeâs business, into his own account. From 1995 until 2000, Joe contended that Mario embezzled about $1.2 million. The district court granted summary judgment to Joe against Mario. The court however, also granted summary judgment to ANB, concluding that a statute of limitations barred Joeâs claims against the bank. Joe appealed the grant of summary judgment to the bank. The Supreme Court concluded that Joeâs claims were governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, and as a result, were subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Joe did not discover Marioâs misappropriations until 2003. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision to dismiss Joeâs claims against the bank as untimely.

Appellant Brook Valley Limited Partnership (BVLP) filed suit at the district court in 2004 against Mutual Omaha Bank over loans made by the bank. The loans were secured by a partnership property. The real property was ultimately sold to cover payments on the loans. The issue at court was whether the agreements that established the partnerships allowed the partners to bring lawsuits. Though they were nearly identical, the district court determined that under the agreements, certain partners were not empowered to authorize lawsuits. As a result, the court concluded BVLP lacked standing to sue the Bank, and dismissed the case. BVLP appealed. After a review of the partnership agreements at issue in the district court, the Supreme Court found that the successor partners were given the authority to sue. The Court reversed the district courtâs decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.