McManus Enters. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm.
303 Neb. 56
| Neb. | 2019Background
- McManus Enterprises (Heidelberg’s) hosted an event after a boxing match; an on-site brawl broke out at about 1:55 a.m., and police intervened.
- The Nebraska Liquor Control Commission charged McManus with violating its disturbance rule, § 019.01F, and canceled its liquor license.
- The commission found McManus ignored police warnings about prior incidents and delegated security to an unregulated third-party security firm.
- The Lancaster County District Court affirmed the commission, reasoning the licensee violated the rule by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the disturbance.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the commission’s rule penalizes merely allowing a disturbance to occur or only allowing an existing disturbance to continue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 019.01F sanctions a licensee for allowing a disturbance to occur or only for allowing an unreasonable disturbance to continue | McManus: the rule applies only after a disturbance has occurred; duty to act arises to terminate a continuing disturbance | Commission: the rule also prohibits allowing a disturbance to occur (preventative duty), given examples of risky activities and prior warnings | The court held the plain text requires a disturbance to have occurred and be continuing before liability attaches; duty to act springs into effect once a disturbance occurs |
| Whether the district court correctly affirmed license cancellation for failure to take pre‑event precautions | McManus: dismissal required because only post‑occurrence duty exists; hosting with knowledge of risk is not itself a violation under the current rule | Commission/district court: knowledge of prior incidents and handing control to an unregulated security team justified sanction | Held for McManus: the court reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss, explaining the rule does not impose a preventative obligation as written |
Key Cases Cited
- Leon V. v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 302 Neb. 81, 921 N.W.2d 584 (discussing agency rulemaking and review)
- DLH, Inc. v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 266 Neb. 361, 665 N.W.2d 629 (agency rules enforce Liquor Control Act)
- Melanie M. v. Winterer, 290 Neb. 764, 862 N.W.2d 76 (treating regulations like statutes for construction)
- Patterson v. Metropolitan Util. Dist., 302 Neb. 442, 923 N.W.2d 717 (statutory/regulatory construction principles)