Ramaekers v. Creighton University
978 N.W.2d 298
Neb.2022Background
- Creighton University required COVID-19 vaccination for students, offering an exemption conditioned on agreeing to vaccinate after FDA full approval. FDA granted full approval on Aug. 23, 2021, and Creighton required first dose by Sept. 7, 2021, or administrative withdrawal.
- Four students filed a complaint and an expedited motion 97 minutes before the deadline seeking an order restoring them as students "pending further Order of the Court." The motion did not expressly label itself as a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
- The district court held hearings on Sept. 14 and Sept. 17, 2021, treated the students’ motion as a request for temporary injunctive relief, received limited affidavits for that hearing, and took the matter under advisement.
- On Sept. 22, 2021, the court issued a written order finding the students’ theory was breach of contract, concluding they failed to show irreparable harm or likelihood of success, and denying their requests for injunctive relief; the order also said the motion could be construed as seeking a temporary restraining order or temporary injunction and those motions were denied.
- Students appealed. The Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether the order was final and appealable or merely a denial of temporary injunctive relief and therefore nonappealable.
- The Supreme Court found the order ambiguous on its face but, after reviewing the record (motions, pleadings, hearing colloquy), concluded the court and parties treated the proceeding as a request for temporary relief only; thus the denial was not a final appealable order and the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court order denying injunctive relief is a final, appealable order | The order’s language denies "requests for injunctive relief as set forth in [their complaint]," so it denied the permanent injunction sought and is final | The order addressed only Students’ temporary-relief request and used temporary-injunction analytical framework, so it is not final or appealable | The order was ambiguous on its face, but the record shows only temporary injunctive relief was sought and denied; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the court intended to enter a merits decision (deny permanent relief) at the preliminary stage | Students: denying "requests for injunctive relief as set forth in complaint" reflects final merits disposition | Creighton: proceedings and court instructions show only temporary relief was before the court; no pleadings framed for merits | Court: No indication parties agreed to consolidate or proceed to final merits; denying on temporary-injunction record would raise due-process concerns; court intended only to deny temporary relief |
| Whether the pleadings and procedure supported a final disposition at the injunction hearing | Students: claimed temporary hearing could suffice and should preserve their status pending fuller development | Creighton: no answer had been filed; issues not framed; evidence was incomplete and evolving | Court: procedural posture (no answer, limited affidavits, parties treated matter as temporary) supports conclusion order was for temporary relief only |
| Whether prior Nebraska authority (Tilson) supports appealability here | Students: relied on Tilson to argue appealable despite being denial of temporary relief | Creighton: Tilson does not change rule that denials of temporary injunctive relief are not final | Court: Tilson did not alter the longstanding rule; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards and limits for preliminary injunctions)
- University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (preliminary injunctions preserve status quo and are decided on less formal process than merits trials)
- Tilson v. Tilson, 299 Neb. 64 (2018) (Nebraska decision addressing appealability of temporary-relief orders)
- In re Estate of Beltran, 310 Neb. 174 (2021) (temporary-injunction orders are not final appeals)
- Kerndt v. Ronan, 236 Neb. 26 (1990) (judgment meaning determined by contents of judgment)
- Pennfield Oil Co. v. Winstrom, 272 Neb. 219 (2006) (purpose and scope of temporary injunctions)