Latest 5 Cases: Benjamin v. Bierman (Business Law), Bierman v. Benjamin (Business Law), State v. Grutell (Criminal Law)

Early Release Doesn’t Help Those Left Behind to Endure the COVID-19 Crisis in American Prisons

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—discusses the crisis the COVID-19 pandemic is having on America’s jails and prisons. Sarat argues that early release is a good start, but it cannot be the only solution, because all people, in and out of prisons, deserve to be treated with dignity.

Read More

The President Cannot Order the States to Open Houses of Worship During COVID-19

MARCI A. HAMILTON

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton argues that the President does not have the power to order states to open houses of worship during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hamilton discusses the limitations on federal power with respect to states and religious entities and praises the wise members of the clergy who are resisting opening before it is safe.

Read More

Benjamin v. Bierman

Citation: 305 Neb. 879

Opinion Date: May 22, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Business Law, Contracts

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that Defendants breached two operating agreements, ordering an accounting for each, declining to dissolve either, and awarding Plaintiff damages, holding that there was no merit to the assignments of error on appeal. Plaintiff, the personal representative of the estate of Mark Benjamin, filed separate complaints against Douglas Bierman (Doug) and Sixth Street Rentals, LLC (collectively, Rentals) and against Doug, Eugene Bierman, and Sixth Street Development, LLC (collectively, Development) generally seeking an accounting to dissolve both Rentals and Development and damages. After the district court entered judgment, Plaintiff appealed and Defendants cross appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Brenda lacked standing to seek dissolution; (2) Defendants' assignments of error regarding fair market value were without merit; (3) there was no merit to Defendants' assignments of error related to breach of contract and specific performance; and (4) there was no merit to Defendants' remaining assignments of error.

Bierman v. Benjamin

Citation: 305 Neb. 860

Opinion Date: May 22, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Business Law, Contracts

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court granting partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, Doug Bierman and Jim Hoppenstedt, on the issue of the enforceability of a buy-sell agreement, holding that the buy-sell agreement was clearly ambiguous. Mark Benjamin, Doug, and Jim entered into a buy-sell agreement providing for the sale and purchase of BD Construction, Inc. shares. After Mark died, Brenda Benjamin was appointed to serve as president of BD. One year later, Brenda terminated Plaintiffs' employment. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against Brenda and BD, seeking, among other things, specific performance of the buy-sell agreement. Prior to trial, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the buy-sell agreement was enforceable. The district court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs on that issue. The Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the district court's determination that the buy-sell agreement was unambiguous was plain error.

State v. Grutell

Citation: 305 Neb. 843

Opinion Date: May 22, 2020

Judge: Stacy

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), fourth offense, holding that there was no plain error in how either the trial court of the court of appeals addressed Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,108(1). On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court plainly erred by failing to address the provisions of section 60-6,108,(1), which provides that Nebraska's DUI statutes "shall apply upon highways and anywhere through the state except private property which is not open to public access." The court of appeals affirmed, finding no plain error. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the exception set out in section 60-6,108(1) is not a material element of the crime of DUI such that the State must always disprove the exception in order to prove the crime of DUI.

Sellers v. Reefer Systems, Inc.

Citation: 305 Neb. 868

Opinion Date: May 22, 2020

Judge: Freudenberg

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

In this workers' compensation case, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Employee's motion for attorney fees for his counsel's appellate work, holding that the affidavit submitted by Employee's attorney sufficiently justified under Neb. Ct. R. App. P. 2-109(F) reasonable attorney fees to which Employee had a statutory right. Employee was awarded permanent total disability benefits. Employer appealed the award to the court of appeals, which affirmed the award in all respects. Employee then filed a motion for an award of reasonable attorney fees under Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-125(4)(b) for the reason that Employer appealed the trial court's decision and there was no reduction in the amount of the award on appeal. Attached to the motion was the affidavit of Employee's counsel who worked on the appeal. The court of appeals denied the motion on the ground that the affidavit did not provide sufficient information to justify the reasonableness of the attorney fees sought. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the affidavit contained sufficient justification of the extent and value of the appellate attorney services to make a meaningful determination of the amount of "reasonable" attorney fees to which Employee was entitled.

Dondlinger v. Nelson

Citation: 305 Neb. 894

Opinion Date: May 22, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Professional Malpractice & Ethics

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this legal malpractice action as time barred, holding that the court did not err in ruling that the continuing representation exception to the two-year statute of limitations in Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-222 did not apply and granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants setting forth claims of professional negligence relating to Defendants' representation of Plaintiffs in a personal injury action. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice, concluding that the continuous representation doctrine did not toll the accrual of the action and that the action was time barred because Plaintiffs filed their claim more than one year after discovery of the alleged negligent act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it dismissed the complaint as untimely.