Bruno v. Metropolitan Utilities Dist., 287 Neb. 551

Metropolitan Utilities District (M.U.D.), a Nebraska metropolitan utilities district, amended a long‑term contract with Northern Natural Gas Company in 2012 for interstate natural gas transportation services (20 years, > $300 million).
Jason M. Bruno, an M.U.D. ratepayer/taxpayer, sued seeking declaratory relief that the amendment be voided or adjusted, alleging M.U.D. failed to seek competitive bids in violation of statutory and common‑law bidding requirements and thus unlawfully increased rates.
Northern intervened; M.U.D. and Northern moved to dismiss Bruno’s complaint for failure to state a claim.
The district court concluded Nebraska law does not mandate competitive bidding for the type of interstate gas transportation agreement at issue and dismissed Bruno’s complaint.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding that § 14‑2125(1) (a statute specific to contracts for gas transportation/purchase/exchange) controls and does not require bidding; general bidding provisions (§ 14‑2121) yield to the specific statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether M.U.D. was statutorily required to competitively bid the interstate gas transportation contract	Bruno: § 14‑2121 and statutory scheme require M.U.D. to seek competitive bids for work not performed by employees	M.U.D.: § 14‑2121 is permissive; § 14‑2125(1) is the specific statute for gas agreements and contains no bidding requirement	Held: No statutory bidding requirement; § 14‑2125(1) controls and is silent on bids, so no mandate
Whether § 14‑2125(1) must be read as part of a broader statutory bidding scheme	Bruno: § 14‑2125(1) should be interpreted in context with § 14‑2121 to require bidding	M.U.D.: Specific statute governs; courts should not read bidding into a statute that is silent	Held: Read § 14‑2125(1) as specific; general law yields to special; no bidding obligation
Whether public‑policy considerations justify imposing a bidding requirement	Bruno: Strong public policy favors competitive bidding to protect public funds and ratepayers	M.U.D.: Policy decisions belong to the Legislature, not courts	Held: Court refuses to impose policy‑based bidding requirement; legislative prerogative
Whether the contract was ultra vires because of lack of bidding	Bruno: Contract is ultra vires and void for failure to comply with bidding statutes	M.U.D.: No statutory violation; therefore not ultra vires	Held: Dismissal appropriate—Bruno alleged no facts other than claimed bidding violation; legal premise invalid

Spady v. Spady, 284 Neb. 885 (procedural authority regarding rulings made without subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Anderson v. Peterson, 221 Neb. 149 (Legislature is the appropriate forum for competitive‑bidding policy questions)
Butler County Dairy v. Butler County, 285 Neb. 408 (rules on statutory interpretation and deference to legislative language)
Doe v. Board of Regents, 280 Neb. 492 (pleading standard for plausible claims and dismissal)