Bohling v. Tecumseh Poultry, 988 N.W.2d 529

Bohling, a former Tecumseh Poultry employee, was terminated after reporting workplace conduct and later was accused of vandalism; she was criminally charged in Johnson County.
The State’s information included multiple felony and misdemeanor counts; after trial the jury deadlocked on felonies, convicted on one misdemeanor, and acquitted on two misdemeanors.
While the criminal case was pending, Bohling sued Tecumseh in Johnson County asserting, among other claims, malicious prosecution; the court granted a motion to dismiss the malicious-prosecution count in March 2020, stating she had "failed to plead a claim" and dismissing that count with prejudice as presently uncurable. One discrimination claim remained.
The Johnson County court later dismissed the remaining civil claims for lack of prosecution in December 2021; Bohling moved to set aside that dismissal and to amend but the court denied relief and she did not appeal the March 2020 dismissal.
Bohling filed a second malicious-prosecution complaint in Lancaster County (Feb. 2022). The Lancaster court dismissed it, holding the earlier Johnson County dismissal was a judgment on the merits that barred relitigation (claim preclusion), and alternatively that the Lancaster complaint failed to state a malicious-prosecution claim. Bohling appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the March 2020 Johnson County dismissal of the malicious-prosecution count was a judgment on the merits for claim preclusion	Bohling: the Johnson County order labeled the claim "premature" and not ripe, so it was not a merits adjudication and shouldn't bar relitigation	Tecumseh: the order dismissed the count for failure to state a claim, expressly said amendment would be futile, and dismissed it with prejudice—so it was a merits judgment that bars relitigation	The court held the March 2020 dismissal was a judgment on the merits (dismissal for failure to state a claim, with prejudice) and, because Bohling did not timely appeal, claim preclusion bars the Lancaster action
Whether Bohling’s Lancaster County complaint adequately pleaded malicious prosecution	Bohling: her complaint alleged Tecumseh’s false/misleading submissions caused prosecution, she suffered damages, and the criminal proceedings resolved favorably on some counts	Tecumseh: the complaint failed to plead essential elements (bona fide termination in favor, legal causation, absence of probable cause)	The court did not decide this issue on the merits; it found dismissal on claim preclusion dispositive and affirmed without reaching the alternative ground

McKinney v. Okoye, 287 Neb. 261, 842 N.W.2d 581 (2014) (sets conjunctive elements of malicious-prosecution claim)
Swift v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 250 Neb. 31, 547 N.W.2d 147 (1996) (demurrer-based dismissal is a judgment on the merits for claim preclusion purposes)
Simons v. Simons, 312 Neb. 136, 978 N.W.2d 121 (2022) (discussion of preclusion doctrines)
Trausch v. Hagemeier, 313 Neb. 538, 985 N.W.2d 402 (2023) (clarifies scope of claim and issue preclusion)
Hara v. Reichert, 287 Neb. 577, 843 N.W.2d 812 (2014) (claim-preclusion principles)
In re Interest of Antonio J. et al., 295 Neb. 112, 886 N.W.2d 522 (2016) (general rule that dismissal with prejudice is adjudication on the merits)