Omaha Police Union Local 101 v. City of Omaha, 292 Neb. 381

The parties had a collective bargaining agreement (Dec. 14, 2008–Dec. 21, 2013) containing an "evergreen" Article 47: if neither party gave written notice by April 1 of any year, the agreement would renew for successive one-year periods.
Neither party provided written notice by April 1, 2014; the Union (Omaha Police Union Local 101) later asserted the contract rolled over for calendar year 2014 and sued for declaratory judgment.
The City defended, asserting equitable estoppel and waiver: it relied on pre- and post‑April 1 communications between negotiators (Feb 27 meeting, Mar 19 call, April meetings) to show the Union waived or was estopped from invoking Article 47.
Key factual disputes concerned what negotiators said (whether the Union clearly waived written‑notice rights or led the City reasonably to rely to its detriment), and how the City itself interpreted Article 47 (it claimed an earlier deadline existed).
The district court found the City misinterpreted Article 47 (deadline to prevent rollover for 2014 was April 1, 2014), rejected the City’s estoppel and waiver defenses, granted declaratory relief to the Union, and denied attorney fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Article 47 automatically extend the contract for 2014 because no written notice was given by Apr 1, 2014?	Union: Article 47 requires written notice by Apr 1, 2014; no notice was given, so the contract rolled over.	City: Various communications showed parties were negotiating for 2014, so no rollover occurred.	Court: Yes — rollover for 2014; Article 47 required notice by Apr 1, 2014 and none was given.
Is the Union estopped from asserting rollover because of its pre‑ and post‑deadline conduct?	Union: It never made false representations or induced reasonable detrimental reliance; it consistently maintained it wanted a rollover.	City: Union’s conduct and silence led City to reasonably rely and forego written notice.	Court: No estoppel — City could not have reasonably relied (it also misread Article 47).
Did the Union waive its contractual right to written notice by negotiating without specifying year?	Union: No clear, unmistakable, voluntary relinquishment occurred; negotiators lacked authority to waive.	City: Participation in negotiations before/after Apr 1 shows waiver of Article 47.	Court: No waiver — waiver must be clear and unmistakable and record does not show that.
Should the Union recover attorney fees for bad faith prosecution?	Union: City’s defenses were meritless, so fees are warranted.	City: Defenses were reasonable and not frivolous.	Court: Denied fees — City’s defenses were not frivolous or in bad faith.

Gaver v. Schneider’s O.K. Tire Co., 289 Neb. 491 (contract interpretation is a question of law)
Stauffer v. Benson, 288 Neb. 683 (trial court as sole judge of witness credibility in bench trial)
Burns v. Nielsen, 273 Neb. 724 (elements and nature of equitable estoppel)
Farmington Woods Homeowners Assn. v. Wolf, 284 Neb. 280 (elements required for equitable estoppel as to both parties)
Davenport Ltd. Partnership v. 75th & Dodge I, L.P., 279 Neb. 615 (definition and standard for contractual waiver)
Hornig v. Martel Lift Systems, 258 Neb. 764 (equitable relief where one party’s conduct clearly lulled the other into repose)