The Nebraska Supreme Court issued an opinion December 5, 2025, in *Sebade v. Sebade*, a family business partnership dispute that establishes important precedent for appellate review standards in Nebraska courts.
The case involves Brent Sebade, who sued both individually and on behalf of Sebade Brothers, a Nebraska partnership, against Rick Sebade and Sarah Sebade. The dispute centers on the family partnership business, with Brent Sebade serving as the appellee and Rick and Sarah Sebade as the appellants in the Supreme Court proceedings.
The court's opinion, designated as case number S-24-902 and published as 320 Neb. 398, primarily addresses procedural standards that govern how appellate courts should review trial court decisions. These standards have significant implications for future business partnership disputes and other civil litigation in Nebraska.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed three critical principles for appellate review that will guide future cases. First, in bench trials of law actions, the court held that a trial court's factual findings carry the same weight as a jury verdict. The appellate court explained that such findings "will not be set aside on appeal unless clearly wrong." This establishes a high bar for overturning trial court determinations and requires appellate courts to give substantial deference to lower court findings.
The court further clarified that appellate courts "do not reweigh evidence" in these circumstances. Instead, they must "consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the successful party and resolve evidentiary conflicts in favor of the successful party." This standard significantly limits an appellate court's ability to second-guess trial court factual determinations.
Second, the Supreme Court addressed witness credibility standards in bench trials. The court held that "the trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony." This places substantial authority with trial judges to evaluate witness testimony and determine which witnesses are most reliable.
The opinion emphasizes that appellate courts "will not reevaluate the credibility of witnesses or reweigh testimony but will review the evidence for clear error." This standard recognizes that trial judges are in the best position to observe witness demeanor, evaluate testimony, and make credibility determinations based on their direct observation of the proceedings.
Third, the court distinguished the standards that apply to equity cases, where different rules govern appellate review. In equity actions, the Supreme Court explained that "an appellate court tries factual questions de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independent of the findings of the trial court." This provides appellate courts with much broader authority to review equity cases compared to law actions.
However, even in equity cases, the court noted an important limitation. When "credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers and may 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 language suggests that even in de novo review, appellate courts should consider the trial court's advantage in observing witnesses firsthand.
The distinction between law and equity review standards reflects fundamental differences in how these types of cases are handled in the Nebraska court system. Law actions typically involve legal claims for damages or other legal remedies, while equity cases involve requests for equitable relief such as injunctions or specific performance.
The *Sebade* case appears to have involved complex partnership law issues, which commonly arise in family business disputes. Partnership disagreements often involve questions about fiduciary duties, profit sharing, management responsibilities, and dissolution procedures. These disputes frequently require courts to evaluate conflicting testimony about business operations, financial arrangements, and the parties' intentions regarding their partnership agreement.
The Supreme Court's emphasis on these review standards suggests that the trial court made factual findings that were challenged on appeal. By reaffirming the limited scope of appellate review in law actions, the court likely upheld the trial court's determinations in favor of Brent Sebade.
This ruling will have practical implications for future business litigation in Nebraska. Parties considering appeals of trial court decisions will need to carefully evaluate whether their case involves questions of law or equity, as this determination significantly affects the likelihood of success on appeal.
The decision also reinforces the importance of thorough trial preparation and effective witness presentation at the trial level. Since appellate courts give substantial deference to trial court factual findings and credibility determinations, the trial stage becomes even more critical for achieving favorable outcomes.
For attorneys practicing business law in Nebraska, the *Sebade* decision serves as an important reminder of the high standard required to successfully challenge trial court factual findings on appeal. The ruling emphasizes that appellate courts are not intended to serve as fact-finding tribunals but rather as reviewers of legal determinations and procedural compliance.