Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1926–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Beren Corp. v. Spadergreen2 sentences1981The applicable rule is, “ 'Generally, upon the execution, delivery, and acceptance of an unambiguous deed, such being the final acts of the parties expressing the terms of their agreement with reference to the subject matter, all prior negotiations and agreements are deemed merged therein, in the absence of a preponderance of evidence clear and convincing in character establishing some recognized exception such as fraud or mistake of fact, and the deed will be held to truly express the intentions of the parties.’” (Emphasis supplied.) Beren Corp. v. Spader, 198 Neb. 677, 693 , 255 N.W.2d 247, 1981The applicable rule is, “ 'Generally, upon the execution, delivery, and acceptance of an unambiguous deed, such being the final acts of the parties expressing the terms of their agreement with reference to the subject matter, all prior negotiations and agreements are deemed merged therein, in the absence of a preponderance of evidence clear and convincing in character establishing some recognized exception such as fraud or mistake of fact, and the deed will be held to truly express the intentions of the parties.’” (Emphasis supplied.) Beren Corp. v. Spader, 198 Neb. 677, 693 , 255 N.W.2d 247, | 1 | 2 |
Purbaugh v. Jurgensmeiergreen2 sentences1995As we stated in Purbaugh v. Jurgensmeier, 240 Neb. 679, 683 , 483 N.W.2d 757, 761-62 (1992): “Merger” does not serve to make the contract and the deed one document; it is merely a rule for the resolution of title disputes. “ ‘ “ ‘[Ujpon the execution, delivery, and acceptance of an unambiguous deed, such being the final acts of the parties expressing the terms of their agreement with reference to the subject matter, all prior negotiations and agreements are deemed merged therein . . . .’ ” ’ ” [Citation omitted.] “[Thereafter the deed regulates the rights and liabilities of the parties, and ev 1995As we stated in Purbaugh v. Jurgensmeier, 240 Neb. 679, 683 , 483 N.W.2d 757, 761-62 (1992): “Merger” does not serve to make the contract and the deed one document; it is merely a rule for the resolution of title disputes. “ ‘ “ ‘[Ujpon the execution, delivery, and acceptance of an unambiguous deed, such being the final acts of the parties expressing the terms of their agreement with reference to the subject matter, all prior negotiations and agreements are deemed merged therein . . . .’ ” ’ ” [Citation omitted.] “[Thereafter the deed regulates the rights and liabilities of the parties, and ev | 1 | 1 |
G.G.A., Inc. v. Leventisgreen1 sentence1995See, also, G.G.A., Inc. v. Leventis, 773 P.2d 841 (Utah App. 1989) (reaching the same conclusion under a “collateral rights” exception to the merger rule). | 1 | 1 |
Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. v. Park Towne, Ltd.green2 sentences1986As expressed in Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. v. Park Towne, Ltd., 212 Neb. 83, 87 , 321 N.W.2d 440, 443 (1982): “ ‘ “[U]pon the execution, delivery, and acceptance of an unambiguous deed, such being the final acts of the parties expressing the terms of their agreement with reference to the subject matter, all prior negotiations and agreements are deemed merged therein . . . .” ’ ” However, in Bibow v. Gerrard, 209 Neb. 10, 13 , 306 N.W.2d 148, 150 (1981), we held: “[T]he doctrine of merger does not apply where there has been fraud or mistake.” As we have previously concluded, there is mu 1986As expressed in Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. v. Park Towne, Ltd., 212 Neb. 83, 87 , 321 N.W.2d 440, 443 (1982): “ ‘ “[U]pon the execution, delivery, and acceptance of an unambiguous deed, such being the final acts of the parties expressing the terms of their agreement with reference to the subject matter, all prior negotiations and agreements are deemed merged therein . . . .” ’ ” However, in Bibow v. Gerrard, 209 Neb. 10, 13 , 306 N.W.2d 148, 150 (1981), we held: “[T]he doctrine of merger does not apply where there has been fraud or mistake.” As we have previously concluded, there is mu | 1 | 1 |
Bibow v. Gerrardgreen2 sentences1986As expressed in Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. v. Park Towne, Ltd., 212 Neb. 83, 87 , 321 N.W.2d 440, 443 (1982): “ ‘ “[U]pon the execution, delivery, and acceptance of an unambiguous deed, such being the final acts of the parties expressing the terms of their agreement with reference to the subject matter, all prior negotiations and agreements are deemed merged therein . . . .” ’ ” However, in Bibow v. Gerrard, 209 Neb. 10, 13 , 306 N.W.2d 148, 150 (1981), we held: “[T]he doctrine of merger does not apply where there has been fraud or mistake.” As we have previously concluded, there is mu 1986As expressed in Union Pacific Land Resources Corp. v. Park Towne, Ltd., 212 Neb. 83, 87 , 321 N.W.2d 440, 443 (1982): “ ‘ “[U]pon the execution, delivery, and acceptance of an unambiguous deed, such being the final acts of the parties expressing the terms of their agreement with reference to the subject matter, all prior negotiations and agreements are deemed merged therein . . . .” ’ ” However, in Bibow v. Gerrard, 209 Neb. 10, 13 , 306 N.W.2d 148, 150 (1981), we held: “[T]he doctrine of merger does not apply where there has been fraud or mistake.” As we have previously concluded, there is mu | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilczewski v. Charter West Nat. Bank
green
1 sentence2016BANK Cite as 295 Neb. 254 the arbitration clause is ineffective. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Washa v. Miller
green
2 sentences2016And the Wilczewskis have not pointed to any language of the purchase agree- ment suggesting that the parties intended to withhold from arbitration the claim of fraud in inducement of the entire contract.30 [8] Next, the Wilczewskis argue that under the doctrine of merger, the agreement merged into the deed and, therefore, 28 Brief for appellants at 11. 29 Washa v. Miller, 249 Neb. 941 , 546 N.W.2d 813 (1996). 30 See Prima Paint v. Flood & Conklin, supra note 12 . - 266 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports WILCZEWSKI v. CHARTER WEST NAT. 2016And the Wilczewskis have not pointed to any language of the purchase agree- ment suggesting that the parties intended to withhold from arbitration the claim of fraud in inducement of the entire contract.30 [8] Next, the Wilczewskis argue that under the doctrine of merger, the agreement merged into the deed and, therefore, 28 Brief for appellants at 11. 29 Washa v. Miller, 249 Neb. 941 , 546 N.W.2d 813 (1996). 30 See Prima Paint v. Flood & Conklin, supra note 12 . - 266 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports WILCZEWSKI v. CHARTER WEST NAT. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Landmark Enterprises, Inc. v. M.I. Harrisburg Associates
green
1 sentence1999The general rule is that where two unequal estates vest in the same person at the same time without an intervening estate, the smaller is thereupon merged into the greater. lM.nd.mark Enterprises, supra. The doctrine of merger, however, is not favored, and equity “ ‘will prevent or permit a merger as will best subserve the purposes of justice and the actual and just intent of the parties, whether express or implied.’ ” Id. at 889 , 554 N.W.2d at 124 , quoting Franksen, supra. As a consequence, merger does not always or necessarily result from a coinciding of two unequal estates. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Edney v. Jensen
neutral
2 sentences1997It was also the decisive factor in Edney v. Jensen, 116 Neb. 242 , 216 N.W. 812 (1927), and First State Savings Bank v. Martin, supra, although it was decided in the context of the merger doctrine. 1997It was also the decisive factor in Edney v. Jensen, 116 Neb. 242 , 216 N.W. 812 (1927), and First State Savings Bank v. Martin, supra, although it was decided in the context of the merger doctrine. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Weiner v. Hroch
neutral
2 sentences1977Ingraham v. Hunt, 159 Neb. 725 , 68 N. W. 2d 344 ; Hoke v. Welsh, 162 Neb. 831 , 77 N. W. 2d 659 ; Weiner v. Hroch, 188 Neb. 389 , 196 N. W. 2d 907 . (3) Ought Spaders, so far as the Beren Corporation is concerned, be treated as a stranger to the title for the purpose of the application of the doctrine of merger? 1977Ingraham v. Hunt, 159 Neb. 725 , 68 N. W. 2d 344 ; Hoke v. Welsh, 162 Neb. 831 , 77 N. W. 2d 659 ; Weiner v. Hroch, 188 Neb. 389 , 196 N. W. 2d 907 . (3) Ought Spaders, so far as the Beren Corporation is concerned, be treated as a stranger to the title for the purpose of the application of the doctrine of merger? | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Ingraham v. Hunt
green
2 sentences1977Ingraham v. Hunt, 159 Neb. 725 , 68 N. W. 2d 344 ; Hoke v. Welsh, 162 Neb. 831 , 77 N. W. 2d 659 ; Weiner v. Hroch, 188 Neb. 389 , 196 N. W. 2d 907 . (3) Ought Spaders, so far as the Beren Corporation is concerned, be treated as a stranger to the title for the purpose of the application of the doctrine of merger? 1977Ingraham v. Hunt, 159 Neb. 725 , 68 N. W. 2d 344 ; Hoke v. Welsh, 162 Neb. 831 , 77 N. W. 2d 659 ; Weiner v. Hroch, 188 Neb. 389 , 196 N. W. 2d 907 . (3) Ought Spaders, so far as the Beren Corporation is concerned, be treated as a stranger to the title for the purpose of the application of the doctrine of merger? | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Hoke v. Welsh
green
2 sentences1977Ingraham v. Hunt, 159 Neb. 725 , 68 N. W. 2d 344 ; Hoke v. Welsh, 162 Neb. 831 , 77 N. W. 2d 659 ; Weiner v. Hroch, 188 Neb. 389 , 196 N. W. 2d 907 . (3) Ought Spaders, so far as the Beren Corporation is concerned, be treated as a stranger to the title for the purpose of the application of the doctrine of merger? 1977Ingraham v. Hunt, 159 Neb. 725 , 68 N. W. 2d 344 ; Hoke v. Welsh, 162 Neb. 831 , 77 N. W. 2d 659 ; Weiner v. Hroch, 188 Neb. 389 , 196 N. W. 2d 907 . (3) Ought Spaders, so far as the Beren Corporation is concerned, be treated as a stranger to the title for the purpose of the application of the doctrine of merger? | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Male v. Wink
neutral
1 sentence1966The conclusion that it is a special statute, applying to judgments, is reached in spite of the fact that section 45-105, R.R.S.1943, itself, in the first sentence states "the contract shall not on that account be void, but if in any action on such contract * * *." (Emphasis ours.) The only portion of section 45-105, R.R.S.1943, which ever mentions the word "judgment" says "judgment shall be for the principal, deducting interest paid." Our belief that the Strine case overlooked the doctrine of merger, and the relevancy of section 45-103, R.R.S.1943, is confirmed by the case of Male v. Wink, 61 | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Matteson v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence1966The conclusion that it is a special statute, applying to judgments, is reached in spite of the fact that section 45-105, R.R.S.1943, itself, in the first sentence states "the contract shall not on that account be void, but if in any action on such contract * * *." (Emphasis ours.) The only portion of section 45-105, R.R.S.1943, which ever mentions the word "judgment" says "judgment shall be for the principal, deducting interest paid." Our belief that the Strine case overlooked the doctrine of merger, and the relevancy of section 45-103, R.R.S.1943, is confirmed by the case of Male v. Wink, 61 | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Mathews v. Jones
neutral
1 sentence1926If there was no expression of his intention in relation to the matter at the time he acquired the equity of redemption, it will be presumed, in the absence of circumstances indicating a contrary purpose, that he intended to do that which would prove most advantageous to himself.” In discussing the doctrine of merger in Peterborough Savings Bank v. Pierce, 54 Neb. 712 , this court said: “Whether the two estates will be held to have coalesced will depend upon the facts and circumstances in the particular case, the intention of the party acquiring the two estates and the equities of the parties t | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Peterborough Savings Bank v. Pierce
green
1 sentence1926If there was no expression of his intention in relation to the matter at the time he acquired the equity of redemption, it will be presumed, in the absence of circumstances indicating a contrary purpose, that he intended to do that which would prove most advantageous to himself.” In discussing the doctrine of merger in Peterborough Savings Bank v. Pierce, 54 Neb. 712 , this court said: “Whether the two estates will be held to have coalesced will depend upon the facts and circumstances in the particular case, the intention of the party acquiring the two estates and the equities of the parties t | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Downing v. Hartshorn
green
1 sentence1926If there was no expression of his intention in relation to the matter at the time he acquired the equity of redemption, it will be presumed, in the absence of circumstances indicating a contrary purpose, that he intended to do that which would prove most advantageous to himself.” In discussing the doctrine of merger in Peterborough Savings Bank v. Pierce, 54 Neb. 712 , this court said: “Whether the two estates will be held to have coalesced will depend upon the facts and circumstances in the particular case, the intention of the party acquiring the two estates and the equities of the parties t | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.