The Nebraska Supreme Court issued an opinion in *Perkins v. RMR Building Group* on January 23, 2026, providing important clarification on corporate veil piercing standards and appellate review procedures in equity cases. The case, designated as No. S-23-947, involved Perkins, L.L.C., a Nebraska limited liability company, and other appellants against RMR Building Group, LLC, and Robert M. Ryan II.
The court's opinion establishes several key legal principles that will guide future corporate liability disputes in Nebraska. Most significantly, the court held that piercing the corporate veil is an equitable remedy, not an action in itself. This distinction is crucial for practitioners and businesses because it clarifies that veil piercing cannot stand alone as a cause of action but must be pursued as a remedy in connection with an underlying claim.
The ruling addresses the fundamental principle that limited liability companies maintain their identity as separate legal entities, which provides protection for their owners from personal liability for the company's debts and obligations. This corporate form protection is a cornerstone of business law that encourages entrepreneurship and investment by limiting personal risk.
In addition to the veil piercing clarification, the Nebraska Supreme Court established important procedural standards for appellate review in equity cases. The court held that in an appeal of an equity action, an appellate court tries factual questions de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independent of the findings of the trial court. However, the court noted an important exception: where credible evidence conflicts on a material issue of fact, the appellate court may consider and give weight to the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.
This appellate standard differs significantly from the review standard applied in law actions tried to a bench. In such cases, the trial court's factual findings carry the weight of a jury verdict, and an appellate court will not disturb those findings unless they are clearly erroneous. The distinction between equity and law actions thus carries important procedural consequences for parties considering appeals.
The court also reaffirmed established principles regarding appellate review of legal questions. When an appeal involves statutory interpretation or presents questions of law, an appellate court must reach an independent, correct conclusion regardless of the determination made by the lower court. This de novo standard of review ensures consistency in legal interpretation across the state's court system.
The *Perkins* decision comes at a time when corporate liability issues are increasingly relevant to Nebraska businesses. Limited liability companies have become the preferred business structure for many enterprises due to their operational flexibility and liability protection features. The court's clarification that LLC identity as a separate legal entity will generally be preserved reinforces the reliability of this business form.
While the full details of the underlying dispute between Perkins, L.L.C. and RMR Building Group are not detailed in the available portions of the opinion, the case appears to involve construction industry participants. Such disputes often involve complex contractual relationships and questions about when individual liability should extend beyond corporate boundaries.
The timing of this decision is notable, coming early in 2026 and representing one of the first major corporate law pronouncements from Nebraska's highest court this year. The opinion builds on established Nebraska precedent while providing clearer guidance for trial courts handling similar disputes.
For practicing attorneys, the decision provides important guidance on how to structure pleadings involving corporate veil piercing claims. Since veil piercing is characterized as a remedy rather than a standalone action, practitioners must ensure they have adequate underlying causes of action to support their veil piercing theories.
The appellate standards clarified in *Perkins* will also influence how attorneys approach trial strategy and appellate advocacy. In equity cases, the de novo review standard means that appellate courts will give fresh consideration to factual questions, though they may still defer to trial court credibility assessments when evidence conflicts.
Looking ahead, the *Perkins* decision will likely be cited frequently in corporate liability disputes throughout Nebraska. The clear articulation of veil piercing as an equitable remedy should help streamline litigation by eliminating confusion about the nature of such claims. Similarly, the appellate review standards will provide predictability for parties considering whether to appeal adverse trial court decisions in equity cases.
The decision reinforces Nebraska's commitment to maintaining strong protections for limited liability business entities while ensuring that courts retain the equitable power to address cases where those protections may be abused. This balance is essential for maintaining a business-friendly legal environment while preventing fraud and ensuring that legitimate creditors have adequate remedies when corporate forms are misused.