Farmland Serv. Co-op. v. Southern Hills Ranch

10 Citing cases

  1. Brook Valley Ltd. v. Mut. of Omaha Bank

    285 Neb. 157 (Neb. 2013)   Cited 28 times
    Holding claim is liquidated "when there is no reasonable controversy as to both the amount due and the plaintiff’s right to recover"

    This is because Prime had authority to pledge the partnerships' property for a partnership purpose, but did not have authority to do so for a nonpartnership purpose without the consent of the limited partners. The appellants argue that the partnerships failed to prove that the loans were for a nonpartnership purpose. Farmland Serv. Co-op. v. Southern Hills Ranch, 266 Neb. 382, 392, 665 N.W.2d 641, 648 (2003).(a) The October Loan Was for a Nonpartnership Purpose

  2. Lalley v. City of Omaha

    670 N.W.2d 327 (Neb. 2003)   Cited 8 times
    In Lalley v. City of Omaha, 266 Neb. 893, 670 N.W.2d 327 (2003), we indicated that for liability to attach under § 81-8,215.

    Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and evidence admitted at the hearing disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Farmland Serv. Co-op v. Southern Hills Ranch, ante p. 382, 665 N.W.2d 641 (2003). FACTS

  3. Bank of Kremlin v. ARA, L.P.

    2020 OK Civ. App. 30 (Okla. Civ. App. 2020)

    ¶11 Because there is a dirth of Oklahoma Supreme Court case law regarding the priority of agricultural liens under the UCC, we look to the case law of our sister states for guidance. In Farmland Serv. Coop., Inc. v. S. Hills Ranch, Inc., 665 N.W.2d 641 (Neb. 2003), the Supreme Court of Nebraska considered a case with facts nearly identical to those here. Id. at 644.

  4. Bank of Kremlin v. ARA, L.P.

    469 P.3d 724 (Okla. Civ. App. 2019)

    ¶11 Because there is a dirth of Oklahoma Supreme Court case law regarding the priority of agricultural liens under the UCC, we look to the case law of our sister states for guidance. In Farmland Serv. Coop., Inc. v. S. Hills Ranch, Inc ., 266 Neb. 382, 665 N.W.2d 641 (2003), the Supreme Court of Nebraska considered a case with facts nearly identical to those here. Id. at 644.

  5. Cont'l Indem. Co. v. IPFS, LLC

    8:19CV485 (D. Neb. Mar. 16, 2020)

    Conversion is "any unauthorized or wrongful act of dominion exerted over another's property which deprives the owner of his property permanently or for an indefinite period of time." Brook Valley Ltd. P'ship v. Mut. of Omaha Bank, 825 N.W.2d 779, 787 (Neb. 2013) (quoting Farmland Serv. Co-op v. S. Hills Ranch, 665 N.W.2d 641, 648 (Neb. 2003)). To succeed on a cause of action for conversion, a plaintiff must show, "(1) an immediate right to possession of the property and (2) its wrongful possession by the tort-feasor."

  6. In Matter of Brook Valley IV Joint Venture

    Case No. BK02-80974, A04-08089, Case No. 02-80973, A04-08090 (Bankr. D. Neb. Feb. 3, 2006)

    They converted property of the bankruptcy estates to that extent. Conversion is any unauthorized or wrongful act of dominion exerted over another's property which deprives the owner of his property permanently or for an indefinite period of time.Farmland Serv. Coop., Inc. v. S. Hills Ranch, Inc., 665 N.W.2d 641, 648 (Neb. 2003). During the time that the debtors operated the buildings, the records show that Brook Valley IV made a "profit" or had "net cash flow" of $13,063.42. With regard to Brook Valley VII, the "net cash flow" was $73,517.90.

  7. In Matter of Damrow

    Case Nos. BK02-43392, A03-4021 (Bankr. D. Neb. Aug. 17, 2004)

    In Nebraska, conversion is any unauthorized or wrongful act of dominion exerted over another's property which deprives the owner of his property permanently or for an indefinite period of time. Farmland Serv. Co-Op., Inc. v. Southern Hills Ranch, Inc., 266 Neb. 382, 392, 665 N.W.2d 641, 648 (2003). Taking Carter Feeders' money and depositing it in Damrow Cattle's accounts is a conversion of Carter Feeders' assets.

  8. Cruz v. Lopez

    301 Neb. 531 (Neb. 2018)   Cited 9 times

    The grant of a motion for summary judgment may be affirmed on any ground available to the trial court, even if it is not the same reasoning the trial court relied upon. See Farmland Serv. Co-op v. Southern Hills Ranch, 266 Neb. 382, 665 N.W.2d 641 (2003).Olson v . Wrenshall, 284 Neb. 445, 822 N.W.2d 336 (2012).

  9. Dean v. Yahnke

    266 Neb. 820 (Neb. 2003)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that a legislative authorization to make sidewalk repairs and assess the expense to the abutting property owner did not authorize a second-class city to delegate the duty of sidewalk maintenance or repair generally or shift liability to the property owner

    Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and evidence admitted at the hearing disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Farmland Serv. Co-op v. Southern Hills Ranch, ante p. 382, 665 N.W.2d 641 (2003). [2-4] When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclusion reached by the trial court.

  10. La Tonya Wright v. Farmers Mutual

    266 Neb. 802 (Neb. 2003)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that insurer must show prejudice

    Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings and evidence admitted at the hearing disclose that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from those facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Farmland Serv. Co-op v. Southern Hills Ranch, ante p. 382, 665 N.W.2d 641 (2003). ANALYSIS