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 § 766A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. The court concluded that its prior decisions had neither adopted nor rejected § 766A and held, as a matter of first impression, that it would not recognize the theory under Nebraska law. The opinion discusses Nebraska’s reception statute and the historical origins of tortious interference claims.

Holdings

1. Nebraska decisions citing or discussing § 766A, including Pettit v. Paxton and Recio v. Evers, neither recognized § 766A as a valid basis for tort liability nor rejected it outright.
2. Nebraska would not recognize § 766A as a valid basis for tort liability.
3. Article I, § 13, does not require recognition of § 766A.
4. Nebraska courts possess authority to modify common-law rules, but the court declined to exercise that authority to adopt § 766A.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Nebraska Supreme Court precedents had 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 tort liability concerning interference with a business relationship or expectancy.
3. Whether article I, § 13, of the Nebraska Constitution requires recognition of a cause of action under § 766A.
4. Whether Nebraska's common-law reception statute and judicial authority to modify the common law warranted judicial adoption of § 766A.

Disposition

other