JUDICIAL:

Smith v. Meyring Cattle Co., L.L.C., 302 Neb. 116 (2019): A ranch employee was injured, allegedly as a result of the ranch’s herding dog nipping at a cow, causing the cow to charge into the employee. The question presented is whether, as a matter of law, such allegations fall outside the strict liability statute, which states in relevant part that the owner or owners of any dog or dogs shall be liable for any and all damages that may accrue to any person, firm, or corporation by reason of such dog or dogs killing, wounding, injuring, worrying, or chasing any person or persons.  We affirm the district court’s order granting a directed verdict in favor of Meyring on Smith’s statutory strictliability claim.
BRIGHT HARVEST SWEET POTATO COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. H.J. HEINZ COMPANY, L.P., Defendant-Appellant. BRIGHT HARVEST SWEET POTATO COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,, No. 17-35058, 2019 WL 325157 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2019) 

This case concerns a contract dispute between H.J. Heinz Co. (“Heinz”) and Bright Harvest Sweet Potato Co. (“Bright Harvest”). Heinz and Bright Harvest entered into a Co-Pack Agreement (“CPA”) under which Heinz promised to purchase sweet potato fries and other sweet potato products from Bright Harvest. The CPA did not specify the quantity of sweet potato fries that Heinz agreed to purchase, but the agreement stated that Heinz had a “non-binding annual planning target” of 10 million pounds of sweet potato fries per year. After Heinz reduced its orders with Bright Harvest to zero, Bright Harvest filed suit against Heinz alleging breach of contract.
There have been two trials in this case. The first trial occurred after the district court denied Heinz summary judgment on the ground that the CPA was ambiguous as to whether it was enforceable as a requirements contract. This jury found that the parties entered into a requirements contract, but that Heinz did not breach the contract. The district court then granted Bright Harvest’s motion for a new trial because it found that the jury’s verdict that Heinz had not breached the contract was against the clear weight of the evidence.
The court affirmed the district Court.