Annotations

• 1. Class action proper

• 2. Class action improper

• 3. Miscellaneous

• 1. Class action proper

• Class action was proper for recovery of erroneous deductions from salaries of policemen and firemen for pension purposes. Gant v. City of Lincoln, 193 Neb. 108, 225 N.W.2d 549 (1975).

• Class suit to determine rights to appropriation of water was authorized. Hickman v. Loup River P. P. Dist., 173 Neb. 428, 113 N.W.2d 617 (1972).

• Class action may apply to proceedings for school district reorganization. Keedy v. Reid, 165 Neb. 519, 86 N.W.2d 370 (1957).

• Class action to enjoin collection of void tax is authorized. Gamboni v. County of Otoe, 159 Neb. 417, 67 N.W.2d 489 (1954).

• Class action was properly brought to determine disposition of assets of religious corporation. In re Estate of Harrington, 151 Neb. 81, 36 N.W.2d 577 (1949).

• Plaintiffs are entitled to sue for themselves and all other members of fraternal insurance corporation similarly situated. Folts v. Globe Life Ins. Co., 117 Neb. 723, 223 N.W. 797 (1929).

• 2. Class action improper

• A prison inmate, who sought to bring class action claims for declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that conditions at the Nebraska State Penitentiary, including overcrowding, cell assignments, flooding, and inadequate showering conditions, violated his rights, lacked commonality with members of the purported class, and thus the inmate was unqualified to represent the class, where claims became moot after he was transferred to another correctional facility. Nesbitt v. Frakes, 300 Neb. 1, 911 N.W.2d 598 (2018).

• An individual who cannot maintain his or her individual cause of action against a defendant is unqualified to represent a purported class in a class action. Lynch v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 275 Neb. 136, 745 N.W.2d 291 (2008).

• The general rule is that an action to recover taxes illegally assessed cannot be maintained as a class action. In re 1983-84 County Tax Levy, 220 Neb. 897, 374 N.W.2d 235 (1985).

• When there is potential for conflicting interests within a class, in that some members of the class own property in both sending and receiving school districts, a suit against the receiving school districts may not be maintained as a class action. In re 1983-84 County Tax Levy, 220 Neb. 897, 374 N.W.2d 235 (1985).

• A former policyholder who has terminated his insurance policy is not the proper representative for a class consisting of policyholders where there are actual and potential conflicts between the interests of the former and present policyholders. It is appropriate to dispose of the class aspect of such a case upon motion for summary judgment. Sarratt v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co., 212 Neb. 436, 323 N.W.2d 81 (1982).

• Generally, a suit cannot be maintained by one taxpayer on behalf of himself and others similarly situated to recover taxes alleged to have been illegally assessed, but each taxpayer must bring action on his own behalf. Riha Farms, Inc. v. County of Sarpy, 212 Neb. 385, 322 N.W.2d 797 (1982).

• A party having an interest adverse to the interests of those sought to be represented may not sue as representative of a class. Blankenship v. Omaha P. P. Dist., 195 Neb. 170, 237 N.W.2d 86 (1976).

• Class action cannot be maintained by persons having interests adverse to those of parties purported to be represented. Evans v. Metropolitan Utilities Dist., 185 Neb. 464, 176 N.W.2d 679 (1970).

• Suit by assignee of claims under Fair Labor Standards Act is not a class action within the purview of this section. Archer v. Musick, 147 Neb. 1018, 25 N.W.2d 908 (1947).

• 3. Miscellaneous

• In order to justify class status treatment, there must exist both a question of common or general interest and numerous parties so as to make it impracticable to bring all the parties before the court. Hoiengs v. County of Adams, 245 Neb. 877, 516 N.W.2d 223 (1994).

• Where a class action is attempted, considerable discretion is vested with the trial court in determining if a class action is proper, even if the class technically fulfills statutory requirements. Berkshire & Andersen v. Douglas County Board of Equalization, 200 Neb. 113, 262 N.W.2d 449 (1978).

• It was not necessary, in special proceedings to confirm validity of reclamation district, to make all landowners parties. Nebraska Mid-State Reclamation District v. Hall County, 152 Neb. 410, 41 N.W.2d 397 (1950).

• Where a number of persons contribute to the erection of a church edifice, it is not necessary for all persons who contributed to join in an action to restrain a sale or transfer thereof. Avery v. Baker, 27 Neb. 388, 43 N.W. 174 (1889).