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.
6 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Haffke v. Signal 88green2 sentences2020No. 20, 705 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1983). 15 Chapman, supra note 14 , 229 F.3d at 1030 . 16 Id. 17 Boss, supra note 14 , 816 F.3d at 917 . 18 Id. 19 Wexler v. White’s Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003). - 638 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports HAFFKE v. SIGNAL 88 Cite as 306 Neb. 625 These propositions have translated into courts’ determining that employers have the right to have juries instructed on the business judgment rule in employment discrimination cases and that such instructions do not prejudice the employee. 20 In fact, the Eighth Circuit has held th 2020ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Haffke assigns, restated, that the district court erred in (1) giving instruction No. 8, because a protected activity in a retaliation claim only requires a reasonable and good faith belief that the underlying company action the employee opposed or refused to participate in was unlawful; (2) giv- ing instruction No. 12 on the business judgment rule when it is inapplicable to an employment discrimination case and conflicts with the pretext standard; and (3) granting Signal 88 a directed verdict on the defamation claim and shifting the burden to Haffke to plead or prove spec | 1 | 1 |
Aronson v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2004The business judgment rule is “a presumption that in making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company.” Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 812 (Del. 1984), overruled in part on other grounds, Brehm v. Eisner, 746 A.2d 244 (Del. 2000). 2004The business judgment rule is “a presumption that in making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company.” Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 812 (Del. 1984), overruled in part on other grounds, Brehm v. Eisner, 746 A.2d 244 (Del. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Clemens Mobile Homes, Inc.green2 sentences2004See Anderson v. Clemens Mobile Homes, 214 Neb. 283 , 333 N.W.2d 900 (1983). (a) Business Judgment Rule The Cramms argue that their corporate activities were protected by the business judgment rule and that the district court erred in disregarding the rule. 2004See Anderson v. Clemens Mobile Homes, 214 Neb. 283 , 333 N.W.2d 900 (1983). (a) Business Judgment Rule The Cramms argue that their corporate activities were protected by the business judgment rule and that the district court erred in disregarding the rule. | 1 | 1 |
Gorder v. Plattsmouth Canning Co.green2 sentences2004As early as Gorder v. Plattsmouth Canning Co., 36 Neb. 548, 556 , 54 N.W. 830, 833 (1893), we recognized that “the relation of directors to the corporation of which they are officers is of a fiduciary character” and that “dealings with respect to the corporate property will be carefully scrutinized by the courts.” Although the burden is ordinarily upon the party seeking an accounting to produce evidence to sustain the accounting, where another is in control of the books and has managed the *68 business, that other is in the position of a trustee and must make a proper accounting. 2004As early as Gorder v. Plattsmouth Canning Co., 36 Neb. 548, 556 , 54 N.W. 830, 833 (1893), we recognized that “the relation of directors to the corporation of which they are officers is of a fiduciary character” and that “dealings with respect to the corporate property will be carefully scrutinized by the courts.” Although the burden is ordinarily upon the party seeking an accounting to produce evidence to sustain the accounting, where another is in control of the books and has managed the *68 business, that other is in the position of a trustee and must make a proper accounting. | 1 | 1 |
Landry v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporationgreen2 sentences1993See, Landy v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 486 F.2d 139 (3d Cir. 1973) (stating that the principles expressed by the business judgment rule applied with equal force to derivative actions by depositors of a bank under the control of a receiver); Weimer v. Amen, 235 Neb. 287 , 455 N.W.2d 145 (1990). 1993See, Landy v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 486 F.2d 139 (3d Cir. 1973) (stating that the principles expressed by the business judgment rule applied with equal force to derivative actions by depositors of a bank under the control of a receiver); Weimer v. Amen, 235 Neb. 287 , 455 N.W.2d 145 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dick v. Koski Prof. Group
green
2 sentences2020GROUP Cite as 307 Neb. 599 the business judgment rule is a rebuttable presumption, it places an initial burden on the party challenging a corporate decision to demonstrate the decisionmaker’s self-dealing or other disabling factor; and if a challenger sustains that initial burden, then the presumption of the rule is rebutted, and the burden of proof shifts to the defendants to show that the trans- action was, in fact, fair to the company. 89 For example, in Anderson v. Clemens Mobile Homes, 90 the plaintiff proved that an officer had realized a personal profit on the sale of land and business 2020GROUP Cite as 307 Neb. 599 the business judgment rule is a rebuttable presumption, it places an initial burden on the party challenging a corporate decision to demonstrate the decisionmaker’s self-dealing or other disabling factor; and if a challenger sustains that initial burden, then the presumption of the rule is rebutted, and the burden of proof shifts to the defendants to show that the trans- action was, in fact, fair to the company. 89 For example, in Anderson v. Clemens Mobile Homes, 90 the plaintiff proved that an officer had realized a personal profit on the sale of land and business | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Weimer v. Amen
green
2 sentences2015But Henery and the association also rely upon the execu- tive board’s refusal of McGill’s demand and contend that the business judgment rule precluded McGill from maintaining a 32 See §§ 76-860(4) and 76-861. 33 See Weimer v. Amen, 235 Neb. 287 , 455 N.W.2d 145 (1990). 34 See id. 2015But Henery and the association also rely upon the execu- tive board’s refusal of McGill’s demand and contend that the business judgment rule precluded McGill from maintaining a 32 See §§ 76-860(4) and 76-861. 33 See Weimer v. Amen, 235 Neb. 287 , 455 N.W.2d 145 (1990). 34 See id. | 2 | 1993–2015 |
Jacobs Eng'g Grp. Inc. v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38 , 917 N.W.2d 435 (2018). 3 Id. 4 See id. 5 Id. 6 § 48-1101. - 634 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports HAFFKE v. SIGNAL 88 Cite as 306 Neb. 625 and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action. 7 [6,7] We have previously held that a plaintiff alleging he or she was subjected to retaliatory action based upon opposing or refusing to participate in an employer’s practice or action which was unlawful only has to show a reasonable, good faith belief of the act’s unlawfulness. 8 In order for such a 2020Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38 , 917 N.W.2d 435 (2018). 3 Id. 4 See id. 5 Id. 6 § 48-1101. - 634 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports HAFFKE v. SIGNAL 88 Cite as 306 Neb. 625 and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse action. 7 [6,7] We have previously held that a plaintiff alleging he or she was subjected to retaliatory action based upon opposing or refusing to participate in an employer’s practice or action which was unlawful only has to show a reasonable, good faith belief of the act’s unlawfulness. 8 In order for such a | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Joan E. Verniero v. Air Force Academy School District 20
green
2 sentences2020No. 20, 705 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1983). 15 Chapman, supra note 14 , 229 F.3d at 1030 . 16 Id. 17 Boss, supra note 14 , 816 F.3d at 917 . 18 Id. 19 Wexler v. White’s Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003). - 638 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports HAFFKE v. SIGNAL 88 Cite as 306 Neb. 625 These propositions have translated into courts’ determining that employers have the right to have juries instructed on the business judgment rule in employment discrimination cases and that such instructions do not prejudice the employee. 20 In fact, the Eighth Circuit has held th 2020No. 20, 705 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1983). 15 Chapman, supra note 14 , 229 F.3d at 1030 . 16 Id. 17 Boss, supra note 14 , 816 F.3d at 917 . 18 Id. 19 Wexler v. White’s Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003). - 638 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports HAFFKE v. SIGNAL 88 Cite as 306 Neb. 625 These propositions have translated into courts’ determining that employers have the right to have juries instructed on the business judgment rule in employment discrimination cases and that such instructions do not prejudice the employee. 20 In fact, the Eighth Circuit has held th | 1 | 2020–2020 |
John D. Chapman v. Ai Transport
green
2 sentences2020No. 20, 705 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1983). 15 Chapman, supra note 14 , 229 F.3d at 1030 . 16 Id. 17 Boss, supra note 14 , 816 F.3d at 917 . 18 Id. 19 Wexler v. White’s Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003). - 638 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports HAFFKE v. SIGNAL 88 Cite as 306 Neb. 625 These propositions have translated into courts’ determining that employers have the right to have juries instructed on the business judgment rule in employment discrimination cases and that such instructions do not prejudice the employee. 20 In fact, the Eighth Circuit has held th 2020No. 20, 705 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1983). 15 Chapman, supra note 14 , 229 F.3d at 1030 . 16 Id. 17 Boss, supra note 14 , 816 F.3d at 917 . 18 Id. 19 Wexler v. White’s Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003). - 638 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports HAFFKE v. SIGNAL 88 Cite as 306 Neb. 625 These propositions have translated into courts’ determining that employers have the right to have juries instructed on the business judgment rule in employment discrimination cases and that such instructions do not prejudice the employee. 20 In fact, the Eighth Circuit has held th | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Donald G. Wexler v. White's Fine Furniture, Inc.
green
2 sentences2020No. 20, 705 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1983). 15 Chapman, supra note 14 , 229 F.3d at 1030 . 16 Id. 17 Boss, supra note 14 , 816 F.3d at 917 . 18 Id. 19 Wexler v. White’s Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003). - 638 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports HAFFKE v. SIGNAL 88 Cite as 306 Neb. 625 These propositions have translated into courts’ determining that employers have the right to have juries instructed on the business judgment rule in employment discrimination cases and that such instructions do not prejudice the employee. 20 In fact, the Eighth Circuit has held th 2020No. 20, 705 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1983). 15 Chapman, supra note 14 , 229 F.3d at 1030 . 16 Id. 17 Boss, supra note 14 , 816 F.3d at 917 . 18 Id. 19 Wexler v. White’s Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003). - 638 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports HAFFKE v. SIGNAL 88 Cite as 306 Neb. 625 These propositions have translated into courts’ determining that employers have the right to have juries instructed on the business judgment rule in employment discrimination cases and that such instructions do not prejudice the employee. 20 In fact, the Eighth Circuit has held th | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Boss v. Castro
green
2 sentences2020No. 20, 705 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1983). 15 Chapman, supra note 14 , 229 F.3d at 1030 . 16 Id. 17 Boss, supra note 14 , 816 F.3d at 917 . 18 Id. 19 Wexler v. White’s Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003). - 638 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports HAFFKE v. SIGNAL 88 Cite as 306 Neb. 625 These propositions have translated into courts’ determining that employers have the right to have juries instructed on the business judgment rule in employment discrimination cases and that such instructions do not prejudice the employee. 20 In fact, the Eighth Circuit has held th 2020No. 20, 705 F.2d 388 (10th Cir. 1983). 15 Chapman, supra note 14 , 229 F.3d at 1030 . 16 Id. 17 Boss, supra note 14 , 816 F.3d at 917 . 18 Id. 19 Wexler v. White’s Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003). - 638 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports HAFFKE v. SIGNAL 88 Cite as 306 Neb. 625 These propositions have translated into courts’ determining that employers have the right to have juries instructed on the business judgment rule in employment discrimination cases and that such instructions do not prejudice the employee. 20 In fact, the Eighth Circuit has held th | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Highlanders v. Wiseman
green
2 sentences2004Association of Commonwealth Claimants v. Hake, supra. “Within the limits of their authority directors possess full discretionary powers, and in the honest and reasonable exercise of such powers are not subject to control by stockholders or by courts at the instance of stockholders.” Royal Highlanders v. Wiseman, 140 Neb. at 38 , 299 N.W. at 464 . 2004Association of Commonwealth Claimants v. Hake, supra. “Within the limits of their authority directors possess full discretionary powers, and in the honest and reasonable exercise of such powers are not subject to control by stockholders or by courts at the instance of stockholders.” Royal Highlanders v. Wiseman, 140 Neb. at 38 , 299 N.W. at 464 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Brehm v. Eisner
green
2 sentences2004The business judgment rule is “a presumption that in making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company.” Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 812 (Del. 1984), overruled in part on other grounds, Brehm v. Eisner, 746 A.2d 244 (Del. 2000). 2004The business judgment rule is “a presumption that in making a business decision the directors of a corporation acted on an informed basis, in good faith and in the honest belief that the action taken was in the best interests of the company.” Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A.2d 805, 812 (Del. 1984), overruled in part on other grounds, Brehm v. Eisner, 746 A.2d 244 (Del. 2000). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.