Wayne L. Ryan Revocable Trust v. Ryan, 297 Neb. 761

Streck, Inc., a family-owned Nebraska corporation, was sued in 2014 by the Wayne L. Ryan Revocable Trust (RRT) alleging shareholder oppression and seeking dissolution; Dr. Wayne Ryan is RRT beneficiary and family members hold various voting/nonvoting shares.
Streck elected under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-20,166 to purchase RRT’s shares rather than dissolve; the court stayed proceedings to determine fair value after the parties failed to agree.
The district court granted cross-motions for partial summary judgment: it held discounts should not apply to fair value and that Streck validly exercised its election to purchase the RRT’s shares; only fair value remained to be decided.
Stacy Ryan (a non-shareholder income beneficiary of a related trust) filed an initial intervention complaint during the stay and it was denied; no appeal was taken from that denial.
More than a year after Streck’s election and after summary judgment, Stacy and four adult children (the intervenors) filed a second complaint in intervention seeking to challenge the validity of Streck’s election and to reopen discovery; the district court struck that complaint and the intervenors appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: intervenors sought to relitigate issues already decided, lacked a direct legal interest in the remaining fair-value proceeding, and could not use intervention to undo prior determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether order denying intervention is appealable	Intervenors argued denial was final and appealable	Streck argued appellate jurisdiction lacking under § 25-1315	Court: Denial of intervention is a final, appealable order; jurisdiction exists
Whether intervenors had statutory right to intervene under § 25-328	Intervenors claimed direct legal interest as income beneficiaries of ERRT and that Streck’s election would dilute ERRT value	Streck/Connie argued intervenors only had indirect interest (non-shareholders) and the only remaining issue was fair value	Court: Intervenors lacked the required direct and legal interest; their interest was indirect
Whether intervention was timely	Intervenors argued timeliness despite prior rulings	Defendants argued intervention was untimely because summary judgment on election was already granted	Court: Intervention was untimely to the extent it sought to relitigate already-decided issues
Whether court could grant relief sought (reopen/relitigate election)	Intervenors sought to vacate/alter prior summary-judgment ruling and conduct full discovery on election validity	Defendants argued intervention cannot be used to relitigate matters already determined and an intervenor must take the case as it stands	Court: Relief unavailable; intervenors cannot relitigate previously decided issues, so complaint properly struck

Ruzicka v. Ruzicka, 262 Neb. 824 (2001) (intervenor may only raise claims involving the same core issue as existing parties)
Spear T Ranch v. Knaub, 271 Neb. 578 (2006) (intervenor must have a direct and legal interest that will be affected by the judgment)
Trainum v. Sutherland Assocs., 263 Neb. 778 (2002) (appellate courts review questions of law de novo)
School Dist. of Gering v. Stannard, 196 Neb. 367 (1976) (an intervenor is bound by determinations made before intervention)
Drainage District v. Kirkpatrick-Pettis Co., 140 Neb. 530 (1941) (an intervenor must take the suit as he finds it; cannot relitigate decided matters)
Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (1983) (general principle that intervention does not permit relitigation of already-decided issues)