Lanham v. BNSF Railway Co. - supplemental opinion , 306 Neb. 124 ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    07/17/2020 08:07 AM CDT
    - 124 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    306 Nebraska Reports
    LANHAM v. BNSF RAILWAY CO.
    Cite as 
    306 Neb. 124
    Alexander Lanham, appellant and
    cross-appellee, v. BNSF Railway
    Company, appellee and
    cross-appellant.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed June 12, 2020.    No. S-19-114.
    supplemental opinion
    Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County:
    Robert R. Otte, Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for
    rehearing overruled.
    Corey L. Stull and Jeanette Stull, of Atwood, Holsten,
    Brown, Deaver & Spier, P.C., L.L.O., and Christopher H.
    Leach, of Hubbell Law Firm, L.L.C., for appellant.
    Nichole S. Bogen, of Lamson, Dugan & Murray, L.L.P.,
    Wayne L. Robbins, Jr., of Robbins Travis, P.L.L.C., and
    Andrew S. Tulumello, of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, L.L.P.,
    for appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
    Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
    Per Curiam.
    This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by
    the appellant and cross-appellee, Alexander Lanham, con-
    cerning our opinion in Lanham v. BNSF Railway Co. 1 While
    1
    Lanham v. BNSF Railway Co., 
    305 Neb. 124
    , 
    939 N.W.2d 363
    (2020).
    - 125 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    306 Nebraska Reports
    LANHAM v. BNSF RAILWAY CO.
    Cite as 
    306 Neb. 124
    there is no substantive merit to the motion, Lanham correctly
    points out that a statutory citation, also used by the district
    court, addressed nonprofit corporations rather than for-profit
    corporations such as BNSF Railway Company. This had no
    effect upon the outcome of the appeal, as the two statutes
    are substantially identical. We overrule the motion, but we
    modify the original opinion to substitute the correct citation
    as follows:
    In syllabus point 11, 2 we withdraw the reference to “Neb.
    Rev. Stat. § 21-19,152 (Reissue 2012)” and substitute “Neb.
    Rev. Stat. § 21-2,209 (Cum. Supp. 2018).”
    We make two changes in the background section. We with-
    draw the phrase “Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-19,152
    (Reissue 2012),” in the fourth sentence of the third paragraph. 3
    In the first sentence of the fifth paragraph, we add “Neb.
    Rev. Stat.” before “§ 21-19,152” and “(Reissue 2012)” after
    the statute. 4
    We also modify the analysis section in five respects
    under the subheading “Consent by Registration.” In the
    eighth paragraph, 5 after the first sentence, we add “Because
    § 21-19,152 applies to nonprofit corporations, the district court
    should have cited to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-2,209 (Cum. Supp.
    2018), a nearly identical statute applicable to for-profit cor-
    porations like BNSF.” We withdraw the ninth paragraph 6 and
    substitute:
    Section 21-2,209 provides:
    . . . Each foreign corporation authorized to trans-
    act business in this state must continuously maintain in
    this state:
    2
    Id. at 125,
    939 N.W.2d at 363.
    3
    Id. at 126,
    939 N.W.2d at 366.
    4
    Id. at 127,
    939 N.W.2d at 366.
    5
    Id. at 133,
    939 N.W.2d at 370.
    6
    Id. at 133-34,
    939 N.W.2d at 370.
    - 126 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    306 Nebraska Reports
    LANHAM v. BNSF RAILWAY CO.
    Cite as 
    306 Neb. 124
    (1) A registered office that may be the same as any of
    its places of business; and
    (2) A registered agent, who may be:
    (i) An individual who resides in this state and whose
    business office is identical with the registered office;
    (ii) A domestic corporation or not-for-profit domestic
    corporation whose business office is identical with the
    registered office; or
    (iii) A foreign corporation or foreign not-for-profit cor-
    poration authorized to transact business in this state whose
    business office is identical with the registered office.
    In the 10th paragraph, 7 we substitute “21-2,209” for “21-19,152”
    in the first and third sentences. Finally, in the second sen-
    tence of the last paragraph of the subsection, 8 we substitute
    “21-2,209” for “21-19,152.”
    The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.
    Former opinion modified.
    Motion for rehearing overruled.
    7
    Id. at 134,
    939 N.W.2d at 370.
    8
    Id. at 135,
    939 N.W.2d at 371.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: S-19-114

Citation Numbers: 306 Neb. 124

Filed Date: 6/12/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/17/2020