Salem Grain Company, Inc. v. City of Falls City

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Salem Grain’s claims challenging a redevelopment project and tax-increment financing arrangements in Falls City. The court held that statutory conclusive presumptions under Nebraska’s Community Development Law applied to challenges involving the redevelopment bonds and contract, and it also upheld the district court’s rulings concerning amendment of pleadings, summary judgment, evidentiary limitations, and alleged Open Meetings Act violations.

Holdings

1. When the statutory predicates are met, §§ 18-2129 and 18-2142.01 must be construed together. A suit challenging the validity or enforceability of a redevelopment contract or bond is subject to the conclusive presumption outside the 30-day window in § 18-2142.01, and the presumption under § 18-2129 applies to actions regardless of when they were filed.
2. The conclusive presumptions in §§ 18-2129 and 18-2142.01 are substantive rules of law, not statutes of limitations or affirmative defenses, and therefore may apply even though the defendants did not plead them.
3. The August 15 dinner and November 9 email exchange were not meetings of the redevelopment authority under Nebraska's Open Meetings Act, and no violation of the Act was proved.
4. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence concerning alleged Open Meetings Act violations that were not raised in the operative amended complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Nebraska Revised Statutes §§ 18-2129 and 18-2142.01 should be construed together so that the conclusive presumption applies to actions challenging a redevelopment contract or bond that are filed before the contract is formally entered into or the bond is authorized but remain pending after those events occur.
2. Whether the conclusive presumptions under §§ 18-2129 and 18-2142.01 are statutes of limitations or affirmative defenses that must be pleaded.
3. Whether the alleged August 15, 2012, dinner and November 9, 2012, email exchange constituted meetings under Nebraska's Open Meetings Act.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding evidence concerning Open Meetings Act violations not alleged in the operative complaint.
5. Whether the district court erred in its discovery rulings, denial of leave to amend, denial of a continuance, partial summary judgment, and dismissal of the action.

Disposition

affirmed