Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-406 (2026)

Prohibited practices; enumerated

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It shall be a violation of sections 87-401 to 87-410 for any franchisor, directly or indirectly, through any officer, agent or employee, to engage in any of the following practices:

(1) To require a franchisee at the time of entering into a franchise arrangement to assent to a release, assignment, novation, waiver or estoppel which would relieve any person from liability imposed by sections 87-401 to 87-410;

(2) To prohibit directly or indirectly the right of free association among franchisees for any lawful purpose;

(3) To require or prohibit any change in management of any franchisee unless such requirement or prohibition of change shall be for good cause, which cause shall be stated in writing by the franchisor;

(4) To restrict the sale of any equity or debenture issue or the transfer of any securities of any franchisee or in any way prevent or attempt to prevent the transfer, sale, or issuance of shares of stock or debentures to employees, personnel of the franchisee, or heirs of the principal owner, as long as basic financial requirements of the franchisor are complied with and any such sale, transfer, or issuance does not have the effect of accomplishing a sale of the franchise;

(5) To impose unreasonable standards of performance upon a franchisee; and

(6) To provide any term or condition in any lease or other agreement ancillary or collateral to a franchise, which term or condition directly or indirectly violates sections 87-401 to 87-410.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1988–2015 · leading case: Modern Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc. Modern Banking Sys. of S. Wisconsin, 871 F.2d 734 (8th Cir. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Modern Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc. Modern Banking Sys. of S. Wisconsin, 871 F.2d 734 (8th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 87-406(1) contains an anti-waiver provision similar to that found in section 80C.”

Modern Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc. Modern Banking Sys. of S. Wisconsin, 858 F.2d 1339 (8th Cir. 1988). “7 While as a general rule both Minnesota and Nebraska have evidenced a willingness to enforce parties’ choice of law agreements, in the case of franchiser-franchisee relations, both states have expressed a contrary intent through the enactment of anti-waiver provisions.”

Unlimited Opportunity v. Waadah, 290 Neb. 629 (Neb. 2015). “17 § 87-406(3), (4), and (5). Nebraska Advance Sheets UNLIMITED OPPORTUNITY v.”

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-406(1) — 2 cases

Modern Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc. Modern Banking Sys. of S. Wisconsin, 871 F.2d 734 (8th Cir. 1989). “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 87-406(1) contains an anti-waiver provision similar to that found in section 80C.”

— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 87-406(3) — 1 case

Unlimited Opportunity v. Waadah, 290 Neb. 629 (Neb. 2015). “17 § 87-406(3), (4), and (5). Nebraska Advance Sheets UNLIMITED OPPORTUNITY v.”

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.