Nebraska Supreme Court finds that meatpackers' payments to cleaning companies were subject to sales taxes, reverses Lancaster County District Court that hand found Department of Revenue regulations that required packers to pay the sales taxes went beyond revenue statute § 77-2701.16(4)(a). Swift & Co. v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., S-08-1095 through S-08-1099, 278 Neb. 763 Specialized cleaning services for meatpackers cleaned all the equipment fixtures, areas of the plants and the packers paid sale taxes on the services. Packers sought refunds and sued in Lancaster County District Court when the Department of Revenue denied their refund claims. The District Court Judge found Reg. 1-098.03A unlawfully expands the definition of services covered by § 77-2701.16(4)(a). Supreme Court, CJ Heavican reverses: "the Department did not exceed the scope of its rule making authority. Although other sections of the statute specifically mention personal property, those situations are distinguishable... also Reg. 1-098.03A contemplates that the cleaning of tangible personal property must be incidental to cleaning the building. As pointed out by the Department, most cleaning contracts contemplate at least some cleaning of personal property located within the building...Therefore..Reg. 1-098.03A did not exceed the Department’s rule making authority and that the taxpayers are not entitled to a refund ."

Initiative 300 vampire rises from the grave with LB 1174. Nebraska Unicameral. Senator Dierks introduced son-of Initiative 300, the family farm constitutional amendment with modifications to placate the eighth circuit court of appeals. The bill allows the disabled to participate in farm entities that are not corporations and allows out of state residents to participate as family farmers in this state.

Nebraska State Unicameral kills LB1148 that proposed banning confinement crates for gestating sows. Omaha.com Peripatetic Lincoln Senator Dianna Schimek found other priorities after introducing LB1148 that was former Mayor Don Wesley's and the Humane Society's brainchild. Sponsors of the withdrawn bill sought to phase out confinement pens for pregnant sows. Livestock producers consider it an economical practice that allows farmers to monitor food, water, health and pregnancies. "LB 1148 came to life after Kevin Fulton, a Litchfield farmer, made repeated calls to the Humane Society of the United States, prodding them to promote Nebraska legislation to phase out gestation crates as it had done in Oregon. The national organization hired Lincoln lobbyist Don Wesely, a former state senator and former Lincoln mayor, to find someone to introduce the proposal, which would have phased out gestation crates by 2014.Sen. Phil Erdman, chairman of the Legislature's Agriculture Committee, filed the kill motion against LB 1148. He said he was prepared to find 24 co-sponsors, had that been necessary.Hog operations are being bullied and targeted by the Humane Society of the United States, Erdman said. Fulton said the humane society was reluctant to tackle the issue in a major farm state.Fulton, who raises grass-fed cattle, is a public speaker who supports sustainable agriculture. The Humane Society of the United States has organized successful petition drives against gestation crates in Florida and Arizona, two states with minimal hog numbers.The society maintains that confinement, which restricts animals from turning around and socializing with other animals, is cruel and inhumane.Pressure from the society and the public has prompted some major food retailers, including Burger King, Wendy's and Hardees, to issue statements encouraging a phase-out of gestation crates. Smithfield Foods Inc., the world's largest hog producer, has said it would phase out the use of gestation crates. Advocates and some veterinarians, however, say confinement is preferable to group housing partly because it avoids the tendency of pregnant sows to become violent with one another. In a policy statement on hog confinement, the American Veterinary Medical Association says that all current forms of housing have advantages and disadvantages for animal welfare.The veterinary group recommends more research into technology and study of economical viability before ending current confinement practices.Smaller pork producers would be affected most if they were forced to change their method of handling sows, said Larry Sitzman, executive director of the Nebraska Pork Producers Association. "The large producers have the resources and the ability to make major changes," Sitzman said, "whereas a family producer will just drop out of the marketplace."

Cattlemen lose verdict at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals but go away with an English lesson. 071586P.pdf 01/29/2008 Herman Schumacher v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 07-1586 and No: 07-1588 and No: 07-1590 U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Aberdeen [PUBLISHED] [Beam, Author, with Melloy and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] The Packers and Stockyards Act Section 202(e) (7 U.S.C. § 192(e)) did not apply when Packers who paid cattlemen less for their livestock because the US Department of Agriculture published erroneous "cut-out" prices for six weeks in 2001 (Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act (LMRA)7 U.S.C. § 1635f). Cattlemen sued several large meatpackers for violating the Packers and Stockyards Act when the USDA's published prices for packers' cut-out prices were too low. Cut-out prices are the average of separate boxed beef prices. The jury found for the cattlemen on their 202(e) {market manipulation} complaint that the packers' reliance on the erroneous price data was unlawful control of the cattle market. The cattlemen lost their 202(a) {price discrimination} complaint at trial. Eighth Circuit reverses, finding 202(e) liability for the "effect of manipulating or controlling prices" required intentional conduct. "Controlling" is to the Eighth Circuit just a little nicer version of "manipulating" so either way, the plaintiffs needed to prove intent, which they did not. Reversed with directions to dismiss. "Or" (can be) interpretative or expository of the preceding word. For instance, "or" is often used in the sense of "to wit," "that is to say," or simply a broadened or narrowed explanation of the same thing. We find that Congress intended "or" to be given an explanatory interpretation. Indeed, "manipulate," according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, is defined in terms of control. Thus, under the statute, control is simply a more benign and slightly less invidious way of achieving manipulation, both requiring an intentional act to animate the result. In sum, we conclude that to prove a violation of § 202(e), a plaintiff must show that a packer intentionally committed unlawful conduct. Therefore, the district court erred when it instructed the jury that a showing of intent was not required and reversal of the district court is necessary.

Nebraska Supreme Court allows Otoe County to require mutual impact easements when real estate developers seek permits to build houses close to existing hog confinement facilities. Coffey v. County of Otoe, S-06-921, 274 Neb. 796A property developer and a purchaser of one of his lots sought to build a house that was close to an existing hog confinement facility. Otoe County required in its zoning regulations that homeowners and livestock producers file mutual impact easements before it would allow the building to continue. When the livestock producer refused to grant the easement and Otoe County refused to allow a variance, the developer and his customer sued. The Otoe County District Court reversed finding the mutual impact easement requirement was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Nebraska Supreme Court reverses, the zoning regulations were proper exercises of zoning power. "If the consent is used for no other purpose than to waive or modify a restriction which the governing body has lawfully created and has provided for such a waiver or modification by those most affected, then the consent is regarded as being within constitutional limitations," Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago, 242 U.S. 526, 37 S . Ct. 190, 61 L. E d. 472 (1917).we conclude that the mutual impact easement language in Otoe County’s zoning regulations is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, and the district court erred in concluding otherwise

Nebraska Supreme Court reverses Thomas County District Court's summary judgment ordering removal of directors of cattle feeding corporation. Neiman v. Tri R Angus, S-06-118, 274 Neb. 252. District court judge ordered corporate officers removed following dispute between shareholders and the directors. Although the defendants did not offer evidence disputing removal, the Supreme Court reverses the removal under 21-2086 proceedings. Because the statute includes grounds for fraud and because fraud requires heightened proof of intent, the Supreme Court concludes all grounds for removal of directors will require heightened proof. "Nebraska's statute on judicial removal of corporate directors, § 21-2086, is an extraordinary remedy. It is not for resolving mere differences of opinion between the shareholders and the directors regarding their exercise of business judgment. Instead, it is an unusual remedy that is to be granted only upon the shareholder’s production of sufficient evidence demonstrating that the director has engaged in “fraudulent or dishonest conduct or gross abuse of authority or discretion with respect to the corporation.” § 21-2086."

Nebraska Supreme Court nixes North Carolina pig breeder's claim against hog farmers estate. The breeders officers mistakenly signed where the hog farm's principal should have signed to guarantee the farms breeding stock debts. Court affirms Gage County Probate Court's ruling that there was no guaranty agreement either by reforming the erroneously signed document nor by finding that the guaranty was the "leading object" of the agreement between the farm and breeder, so the court would not excuse the writing requirement of the statute of frauds (§ 36‑202(2) (Reissue 2004)). In re Estate of Dueck, S-06-538there was no written guaranty agreement between the parties. In the absence of a written agreement between GIS and Dueck, there was nothing to reform The leading object rule presumes that there has been an oral promise or some sort of an oral agreement.Dueck did not orally agree to guarantee Forward Trend’s debt to GIS, and it follows that the leading object rule was inapplicable.