Robertson v. Jacobs Cattle Co.
Nebraska Court of Appeals
285 Neb. 859 (2013)
- Written by David Bloom, JD
Facts
Jacobs Cattle Company (JCC) (defendant), a family partnership, owned farmland and rented it to others. JCC’s partners consisted of Ardith Jacobs (defendant); Ardith’s children, including Dennis Jacobs (defendant) and Patricia Robertson (plaintiff); and Patricia’s husband, James Robertson (plaintiff). The partnership agreement gave Ardith broad management authority to run the day-to-day business of JCC. Patricia and James rented land from JCC. JCC, at the direction of Ardith, successfully sued Patricia and James for unpaid rent. The partners agreed that JCC could not continue to function with Patricia and James as partners. Patricia and James commenced an action to dissolve the partnership. JCC, Ardith, and Dennis asked the court to order the dissociation of Patricia and James from the partnership, rather than dissolve the partnership, and proposed a buyout of Patricia’s and James’s partnership shares measured from May 2005, when the nonpayment of rent occurred. The court declined to dissolve the partnership and, in September 2011, ordered the dissociation of Patricia and James from the partnership. Patricia and James appealed. The court also directed that the value of Patricia and James’s interest in JCC, for the purpose of determining the amount for which the remaining partners would be required to buy out Patricia and James, was to be measured as of September 2011, the date of the dissociation order, rather than May 2005, the date that Patricia and James failed to pay rent. JCC, Ardith, and Dennis cross-appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stephan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.