Newman v. Hinky Dinky Omaha-Lincoln, Inc.
Nebraska Supreme Court
229 Neb. 382, 427 N.W.2d 50 (1988)
- Written by John Yi, JD
Facts
Newman (plaintiff) leased property to American Community Stores Corporation (ACS). The property was used to operate a Hinky Dinky Omaha-Lincoln (Hinky) (defendant) supermarket. The lease prohibited ACS from assigning or subletting the lease without Newman’s consent. ACS sought to assign the lease to a third party who would then sublease it back to Hinky. ACS entered negotiations with Newman to obtain his approval, but those negotiations were unsuccessful. Nevertheless, ACS proceeded with the assignment and sublease. Newman then filed a petition for restitution of the property. The trial court granted summary judgment for Newman because it reasoned that a landlord could refuse consent for any reason. Hinky appealed, arguing that even though Newman’s consent was required, Newman was not entitled to withhold consent unreasonably.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Shanahan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
