tortious interference claim in Nebraska

2020GROUP Cite as 307 Neb. 599 basis for a tortious interference claim,” because such conduct is justified. 150 [57,58] The party alleging tortious interference has the bur- den of proving that the conduct did not fall within the competi- tor’s privilege. 151 One is privileged purposely to cause a third person not to enter into or continue a business relation with a competitor of the actor if (1) the relation concerns a matter involved in the competition between the actor and the com- petitor, (2) the actor does not employ improper means, (3) the actor does not intend thereby to create or continue

2020GROUP Cite as 307 Neb. 599 basis for a tortious interference claim,” because such conduct is justified. 150 [57,58] The party alleging tortious interference has the bur- den of proving that the conduct did not fall within the competi- tor’s privilege. 151 One is privileged purposely to cause a third person not to enter into or continue a business relation with a competitor of the actor if (1) the relation concerns a matter involved in the competition between the actor and the com- petitor, (2) the actor does not employ improper means, (3) the actor does not intend thereby to create or continue

2026Ill. 2022), vacated and remanded 90 F.4th 919 (7th Cir. 2024).

2026Ill. 2022), vacated and remanded 90 F.4th 919 (7th Cir. 2024).

2026The federal district court discussed prior decisions from this court that cited § 766A—Recio v. Evers, 278 Neb. 405 , 771 N.W.2d 121 (2009), and Pettit v. Paxton, 255 Neb. 279 , 583 N.W.2d 604 (1998)—but concluded that in those cases, this court neither recognized § 766A as a valid basis for a tortious interference claim under Nebraska law nor “rejected that section out of hand.” Green Plains Trade Group v. Archer Daniels Midland, 648 F. Supp. 3d at 1036.

2026The federal district court discussed prior decisions from this court that cited § 766A—Recio v. Evers, 278 Neb. 405 , 771 N.W.2d 121 (2009), and Pettit v. Paxton, 255 Neb. 279 , 583 N.W.2d 604 (1998)—but concluded that in those cases, this court neither recognized § 766A as a valid basis for a tortious interference claim under Nebraska law nor “rejected that section out of hand.” Green Plains Trade Group v. Archer Daniels Midland, 648 F. Supp. 3d at 1036.

2026The federal district court discussed prior decisions from this court that cited § 766A—Recio v. Evers, 278 Neb. 405 , 771 N.W.2d 121 (2009), and Pettit v. Paxton, 255 Neb. 279 , 583 N.W.2d 604 (1998)—but concluded that in those cases, this court neither recognized § 766A as a valid basis for a tortious interference claim under Nebraska law nor “rejected that section out of hand.” Green Plains Trade Group v. Archer Daniels Midland, 648 F. Supp. 3d at 1036.

2026The federal district court discussed prior decisions from this court that cited § 766A—Recio v. Evers, 278 Neb. 405 , 771 N.W.2d 121 (2009), and Pettit v. Paxton, 255 Neb. 279 , 583 N.W.2d 604 (1998)—but concluded that in those cases, this court neither recognized § 766A as a valid basis for a tortious interference claim under Nebraska law nor “rejected that section out of hand.” Green Plains Trade Group v. Archer Daniels Midland, 648 F. Supp. 3d at 1036.

2026But with respect to this claim, we agree with the district court that there was no evidence Hiro 88 was doing anything other than engaging in valid competition. [6,7] We have said that valid competition, “including inducement of third persons to do their business with oneself rather than with a particular competitor, cannot be the basis for a tortious interference claim, because such conduct is - 620 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports BAR AT THE YARD v. FRIENDS FAMILY Cite as 321 Neb. 606 justified.” Dick v. Koski Prof.

2015Nebraska Advance Sheets STEINHAUSEN v. HOMESERVICES OF NEB. 945 Cite as 289 Neb. 927 expectancy was disrupted.79 The interference must impact a valid business relationship or expectancy,80 and the relationship or expectancy interfered with “must belong to the party assert- ing the claim.”81 [16] Members of an LLC cannot, in their own behalf, maintain a claim for tortious interference with the business relationships or expectancies of the LLC.82 Only the parties to the relationship or expectancy interfered with may bring a tortious interference claim.83 That a member of an LLC might experience