Green Plains Trade Group LLC et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court answered a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois concerning whether Nebraska would recognize a tortious-interference claim under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766A. The court held that its prior decisions had neither adopted nor rejected § 766A and considered the issue as one of first impression, including whether the theory had English common-law origins. The excerpt explains the dispute involving ethanol pricing and interference with contract performance, but it does not include the complete final holding.

Holdings

1. Nebraska Supreme Court decisions citing or discussing § 766A, including Pettit v. Paxton and Recio v. Evers, neither recognized nor rejected § 766A as a valid basis for tort liability under Nebraska law.
2. Nebraska would not recognize § 766A as a valid basis for tort liability.
3. Article I, § 13, of the Nebraska Constitution does not compel recognition of § 766A.
4. Where policy arguments for and against creation of a new common-law tort are comparably compelling, the court will defer to the Legislature.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Nebraska previously recognized or rejected Restatement (Second) of Torts § 766A as a basis for tortious interference liability.
2. Whether Nebraska would recognize § 766A as a valid basis for tortious interference with a business relationship or expectancy.
3. Whether article I, § 13, of the Nebraska Constitution requires recognition of § 766A.
4. Whether Nebraska's common-law reception statute and judicial authority to modify the common law support judicial adoption of § 766A.

Disposition

other