Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 59
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-821 (2026)

Violations; recovery of actual or liquidated damages; attorney's fees

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person who is injured in his or her business or property by any other person or persons by a violation of sections 59-801 to 59-831, whether such injured person dealt directly or indirectly with the defendant, may bring a civil action in the district court in the county in which the defendant or defendants reside or are found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover actual damages or liquidated damages in an amount which bears a reasonable relation to the actual damages which have been sustained and which damages are not susceptible of measurement by ordinary pecuniary standards and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1976–2019 · leading case: Kanne v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 723 N.W.2d 293 (Neb. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kanne v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 723 N.W.2d 293 (Neb. 2006). · cites it 12× “They also allege common-law claims for unjust enrichment.”
ACI Worldwide Corp. v. Baldwin Hackett & Meeks, 896 N.W.2d 156 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 3× “53 To recover damages, a plaintiff must prove an antitrust injury.”
Diesel Serv., Inc. v. Accessory Sales, Inc., 317 N.W.2d 719 (Neb. 1982). · cites it 6× “The statute provides: "Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or persons, by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by sections 59-801 to 59-828, may sue therefor .”
Freeman Indus., LLC v. Eastman Chem. Co., 172 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005). “§ 75-21-9 (2005); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 59-821 (2002); Nev.Rev.Stat.”
Bunker's Glass Co. v. PILKINGTON, PLC, 75 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 75-21-9 (2000); Nebraska, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 59-821 (Supp.2002); Nevada, Nev.”
Supreme Auto Transp., LLC v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., 902 F.3d 735 (7th Cir. 2018). “§ 75-21-9 ; Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann § 59-821 ; Nev. Rev. Stat.”
In re Auto. Parts Antitrust Litig., 29 F. Supp. 3d 982 (E.D. Mich. 2014). · cites it 2× “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 59-821 (2000). The July 20, 2002, amendment specified that an injured person could bring suit regardless of “whether such injured person dealt directly or indirectly with the defendant.”
Heath Consultants, Inc. v. Precision Instruments, Inc., 527 N.W.2d 596 (Neb. 1995). · cites it 2× “§ 59-821. Precision's position, in essence, is that although there is no formal written agreement between Heath and its end users requiring the latter to purchase parts and service only from Heath, Heath's policies nonetheless create such a tying arrangement, which results in…”
In re Dealer Mgmt. Sys. Antitrust Litig., 362 F. Supp. 3d 510 (E.D. Ill. 2019). “in his or her business or property by any other person or persons by a violation of sections 59-801 to 59-831, whether such injured person dealt directly or indirectly with the defendant, may bring a civil action in the district court in the county in which the defendant or…”
In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., 749 F. Supp. 2d 224 (M.D. Pa. 2010). “§ 59-1609 (consumer protection statute); see also Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-821 (permitting antitrust claimant to recoup “actual damages or liquidated damages in an amount which bears a reasonable relation to the actual damages which have been sustained”).”
Allied Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Foremost Ins., 418 F. Supp. 157 (D. Neb. 1976). · cites it 2× “While Section 59-821 provides for private antitrust suits and treble damages, it is unclear whether plaintiff also seeks damages by virtue of Section 44-1525(4).”
Supreme Auto Transp., LLC v. Arcelor Mittal USA, Inc., No. 17-2910 (7th Cir. Sept. 6, 2018). “§ 75-21-9 ; Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann § 59-821; Nev. Rev. Stat.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.