## Facts

- Morton Sullivan bought a Chevrolet Suburban from a Sid Dillon dealership and later claimed the vehicle was defective and that the dealership failed to fix recurring problems.
- Sullivan used advertising and information businesses to circulate harsh, broad accusations about Dillon’s integrity and business practices and urged consumers not to do business with Dillon.
- Dillon sought equitable relief under Nebraska’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA), alleging Sullivan’s statements and conduct were false or misleading and harmed Dillon’s business interests.
- The district court entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) broadly prohibiting Sullivan from speaking about Dillon and its businesses.
- Sullivan continued his communications after the TRO, leading Dillon to seek enforcement.
- The district court found Sullivan in contempt, replaced the TRO with a permanent injunction directed at conduct and speech found to violate the UDTPA, and awarded attorney’s fees to Dillon.

## Issues

1. Whether and under what limits a court of equity may enjoin speech alleged to be false or misleading about a business without imposing an unconstitutional prior restraint.
2. Whether Nebraska equity may enjoin libel or slander, and what exceptions permit injunctive relief.
3. Whether the collateral bar rule prevents a party from defending contempt by collaterally attacking the constitutionality of the TRO/injunction.
4. Whether the attorney’s fee award was authorized.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the contempt finding for violation of the TRO.
- The court applied the collateral bar rule to bar Sullivan from defending contempt by challenging the TRO’s constitutionality in the contempt proceeding.
- The court affirmed the attorney’s fee award connected to enforcing the court’s order.
- The court approved only limited injunctive relief to the extent it targeted conduct and speech adjudicated as deceptive trade practices and threatening to Dillon’s property/business interests, and rejected broader restraints that functioned as a blanket ban on criticism.

## Legal Principles

- An injunction is an extraordinary remedy and generally requires a clear right, irreparable harm, and inadequacy of legal remedies.
- Equity will not enjoin libel or slander absent a prior adversarial determination that the publication is false or a misleading representation of fact, unless the publication is (1) in violation of a trust or contract, (2) in aid of another tort or unlawful act, or (3) injunctive relief is essential to preserve a property right.
- The collateral bar rule generally requires compliance with court orders; a party may not violate an order and then raise its alleged unconstitutionality as a defense to contempt.
- Attorney’s fees are recoverable only when authorized by statute or by a recognized and accepted uniform course of procedure.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the TRO through contempt and fee shifting despite constitutional objections, while holding that injunctive restraints on speech must be narrowly confined to speech and conduct proven to constitute deceptive trade practices or otherwise falling within recognized equity exceptions, rather than imposing a blanket prior restraint on criticism.


Sid Dillon Chevrolet-Oldsmobile-Pontiac, Inc. v. Sullivan, 559 N.W.2d 740 (Neb. 1997)