Salem Grain Co. v. City of Falls City, 924 N.W.2d 678

Background

Falls City Authority entered a redevelopment contract with Consolidated Grain in Nov 2012 and issued a $3.71M TIF bond; project completed and facility operating by Sept 2013.
Salem Grain and two residents sued Oct 24, 2012 challenging the project under Nebraska’s Community Development Law and alleging Open Meetings Act (NOMA) violations; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief including voiding the contract/bonds.
The district court dismissed most claims on summary judgment as moot after project completion, preserved two NOMA claims (an Aug 15, 2012 dinner and Nov 9, 2012 emails), and held a bench trial on those limited claims.
After trial the district court found neither event constituted a NOMA "meeting" and dismissed the action; Salem Grain appealed.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court considered whether statutory "conclusive presumptions" in §§ 18-2129 and 18-2142.01 bar challenges to redevelopment bonds/contracts and reviewed de novo the NOMA issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conclusive presumption precludes Salem Grain's statutory challenges to the redevelopment contract/bond	§18-2142.01’s 30-day window should exempt suits already pending when the contract/bond event occurs, so Salem Grain’s claims survive	Conclusive presumptions (§18-2129) apply once contract/bond recites statutory language; §18-2142.01 creates only a narrow 30-day exemption for suits filed after the triggering event	Held: Conclusive presumption applies; because the contract/bond later recited the required language, Salem Grain’s challenges to validity/enforceability are conclusively foreclosed
Whether the conclusive presumption is an affirmative defense or statute of limitations requiring plea below	It is like a limitations defense and must be pled by defendants	It is a substantive conclusive presumption (not procedural or an affirmative defense) and applies as law regardless of pleading	Held: Not an affirmative defense or limitations bar; court applies presumption sua sponte as substantive law
Whether NOMA claims (Aug 15 dinner and Nov 9 emails) independently void Authority actions even if Community Development Law presumption applies	NOMA violations could independently render actions void under §84-1414 despite the conclusive presumption	Defendants: the two events were not NOMA "meetings"; even if there were conflicts, Salem Grain failed to prove violations	Held: After de novo review, neither event was a NOMA meeting; no NOMA violation proved
Whether trial court abused discretion excluding evidence of other NOMA incidents	Excluded evidence was relevant to show a pattern of NOMA violations	Defendants: evidence was irrelevant because those NOMA incidents were not alleged in operative complaint	Held: Exclusion not an abuse—evidence was irrelevant to the two alleged incidents tried

Key Cases Cited

Community Dev. Agency v. PRP Holdings, 277 Neb. 1015 (Neb. 2009) (interpreting §18-2142.01’s 30-day window and holding contract is "formally entered into" when signed)
Schauer v. Grooms, 280 Neb. 426 (Neb. 2010) (dinner/tour did not constitute a public meeting under NOMA where no briefing or policy formation occurred)
Woodmen of the World v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 299 Neb. 43 (Neb. 2018) (general principle that court declares law as it finds it)